y^H  OF  PRIW?^ 


BV  811  .B3 

Baker,  Daniel,  1791-1857 
A  plain  and  scriptural  view 
of  baptism 


^^^^^V^^^2^^^^ 


A   PLAIN 


SCEIPTUEAL    VIEW    OF 


BAPTISM. 


BY    THE! 

REV.    DANIEL  ^B  AKE  R,  D.D. 

OF     TEXAS. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION. 

No.    265    CHESTNUT    STREET. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1853,  by 

A.    W.    MITCHELL,  M.D. 

in  the  Office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Eastern 
District  of  Pennsylvania. 


Stereotyped  bySLOTE  &  Mooney,  Philadelphia. 
Wm.  S.  Mart  I  en.  Printer. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Preface, 5 

Definition  of  Baptism, 7 

I.  Proper  Subjects  of  Baptism,  ....  8 
Infant  Membership  a  part  of  the  original  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church, 9 

Has  never  been  abolished, 16 

Baptism  has  taken  the  Place  of  Circumcision,  21 

The  Language  of  the  Saviour, 22 

His  last  Command, 25 

Household  Baptisms, 27 

Holiness  of  the  Children  of  Believers,  ...  30 
Testimony  of  the  Fathers — Tertullian,  Cy- 
prian— Clemens  and  others — Augustine,  32 — 42 
Seven  objections  answered,    ; 45 — 75 

II.  The  Proper  Mode  of  Baptism,  ...  76 

Immersion  not  the  only  Mode, 78 

Meaning  of  the  Greek  Word, 78 

(3) 


4  CONTEXTS. 

FAas 
Baptist  Armenian  New  Testament — "Believe 

and  be  drowned," 79 

Divers  Baptisms, 84 

Scripture  Usage, 86 — 90 

Cases  examined — John  baptizing  in  Jordan 

— at  Enon — Baptism  of  Christ — Philip 

and  the  Eunuch  —  Paul's  Baptism — the 

Jailer — Cornelius— the  three  thousand,  90-114 

Baptist  Proof-texts  explained, 122-129 

Conclusion, 129 


PREFACE 


Perfect  unanimity  of  sentiment  cannot  be 
found  in  the  happiest  and  best  regulated  families 
on  earth ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  our  wisest 
statesmen  and  purest  patriots  often  differ  in  their 
views  of  some  points,  even  of  constitutional  law. 
It  should  not  therefore  be  any  matter  of  surprise, 
if  amongst  the  multitudes  of  those  who  compose 
the  Christian  Churchj  there  should  be  some  diver- 
sity of  sentiment  in  relation  to  some  matters  of 
faith  and  practice.  And  this  should  not  break  the 
bonds  of  union  which  should  ever  bind  them 
together  as  members  of  the  same  household  of 
faith,  for  the  apostle  does  not  say,  Grace  be  with 
all  them  who  tliinh  alike,  but  "  Grrace  be  with  all 
them  that  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity  J' 
Cordially  agreeing  in  essential  matters,  we  may 
then  with  perfect  integrity  of  religious  character, 
in  other  things  harmoniously  and  safely  agree  to 
differ.  In  relation  to  the  proper  subjects  and 
mode  of  Baptism,  many  persons  have  given  their 
1*  (y) 


VI  PRETACE. 

views.  This  little  unpretending  book  presents 
mine. 
"  Hane  veniam,  petimusque  damusque,  vicissim.'' 
I  am  now  an  old  disciple ;  my  locks  are  silvery. 
Full  threescore  years  have  rolled  over  my  head,  and 
more  than  thirty-six  years  have  I  preached  with 
some  success,  I  hope,  the  glorious  gospel  of  the 
blessed  God.  My  sun  of  life  must  soon  go  down ; 
even  now  the  shades  of  evening  are  lengthening 
around  me.  With  much  love  for  my  brethren 
who  in  the  matter  of  baptism  differ  from  me,  (and 
yet  with  many  of  whom  I  have  often  taken  sweet 
counsel,  and  gone  to  the  house  of  God  in  company,) 
I  now  hand  over  to  my  family,  to  the  church  of 
God  and  the  world  at  large,  in  this  little  book,  my 
testimony  in  favour  of  doctrines  and  practices 
which  I  verily  believe  to  be  both  scriptural  and 
true ;  and  all  I  request  of  the  reader  is,  with  a 
prayerful  spirit  to  read,  examine  and  compare; 
bringing  everything  to  the  test  of  God's  blessed 
word,  withal  remembering,  that  as  neither  circum- 
cision availeth  anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but 
a  new  creature,  even  so  neither  will  water  baptism, 
however  administered,  avail  anything  without  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 


PLAIN  AND  SCRIPTURAL 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM 


The  word  Baptism  is  a  Greek  word  in 
an  English  dress.  It  has  not  been  trans- 
lated, because,  having  a  variety  of  signi- 
fications, no  single  term  in  our  language  could 
be  found  sufficiently  comprehensive.  Like 
the  Latin  word  conversation^  and  the  Greek 
word  angel,  and  the  Hebrew  word  amen, 
the  precise  meaning  of  which,  in  any  given 
place,  is  to  be  ascertained  by  the  connection 
in  which  it  is  there  found. 

"Water  baptism  is  a  sacrament  or  holy  ordi- 
nance instituted  by  Christ.  It  is  a  lively 
emblem  of  spiritual  baptism.  It  is  a  sign 
and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace ;  and  im- 
plies that  the   subject  is  a  sinful  creature, 

(7) 


8        A  PLAIN  AND  SCRIPTURAL 

needing  to  be  cleansed,  and  that  this  cleansing 
is  to  be  accomplished  only  by  the  application 
of  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  puri- 
fying influences  of  the  divine  Spirit.  Two 
points  will  here  be  considered;  the  proper 
subjects  of  baptism,  and  the  proper  mode. 

I.  The  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  Un- 
questionably adults^  upon  a  credible  profes- 
sion of  their  faith  in  Christ,  having  never 
been  previously  baptized,  are  proper  subjects 
of  this  ordinance.  Thus  far  we  agree  pre- 
cisely with  those  who  hold  to  what  is  usually 
denominated  "believers'  baptism."  But  we 
further  believe,  that  the  infants  of  such  as 
are  members  of  the  visible  church  are  also  to 
be  baptized.  Our  argument  is  this :  Infant 
membership  formed  a  part  of  the  original 
constitution  of  the  visible  Church  of  God. 
Infant  membership  has  never  been  abolished, 
and  therefore  infants  have  a  right  to  member- 
ship still.  Baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  the 
ancient  initiatory  or  recognizing  ordinance, 
and  therefore  infants  are  to  be  baptized.  This 
is  the  ground  which  we  take.  Each  position 
is  susceptible  of  clear  scriptural  demonstra- 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  9 

tion,  and  therefore  must  "  stand  the  test  of 
scrutiny,  of  talents,  and  of  time." 

First.  Infant  membership  formed  a  part 
of  the  original  constitution  of  the  church  of 
God  on  earth.  When  was  this  church  con- 
stituted, and  by  whom  ?  Not  by  John  the 
Baptist,  nor  any  in  his  day ;  for  who  can  sup- 
pose that  God  had  no  church  on  earth  for 
four  thousand  years  ?  And  does  not  Stephen 
speak  of  the  ''Church  in  the  wilderness?" 
Acts  vii.  38.  Indeed,  we  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  there  was  a  church  organization 
from  the  period  when  the  first  promise  was 
made  to  the  human  family,  touching  the 
"  seed  of  the  woman  that  should  bruise  the 
serpent's  head;"  and  from  what  is  said  about 
the  connection  which  existed  in  the  earliest 
ages  of  the  world,  between  parents  and  their 
children,  it  would  seem  that  they  were  linked 
together  by  some  bonds  and  ordinances  of  a 
sacred  character,  even  from  the  time  of  Adam. 
Hence,  not  only  were  Noah  and  his  wife  in- 
cluded in  the  ark,  but  also  all  the  members 
of  their  family,  and  none  else.  Moreover,  Mo- 
ses, speaking  of  events  immediately  subsequent 


10       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

to  the  deluge,  makes  this  remarkable  record : 
"  And  God  blessed  Noah  and  his  sons.'* 
And  again,  "  God  spake  unto  Noah,  and  Ms 
sons  with  him,  saying,  And  I,  behold  I  estab- 
lish my  covenant  with  you,  and  your  seed 
after  you'''^    So  that  even  at  this  early  period, 

*  "  There  is  a  very  rational  ?in^just  sense  in  which 
God  may  be  said  to  establish  his  covenant  with 
infants ;  for  the  Scripture  expressly  sa3''s,  (Gen.  ix. 
9 — 13,)  that  he  established  his  covenant  even  with 
the  cattle  and  the  fowl,  solemnly  engaging  no  more 
to  drown  them  by  a  flood.  Is  there  anything  strange 
then,  or  unreasonable  in  the  belief  that  God  has  es- 
tablished a  covenant  with  infants,  solemnly  engaging 
to  pour  out  his  Spirit  and  blessing  upon  them  ?  or  that 
the  evils  they  suffer  in  consequence  of  Adam^s  sin, 
shall  be  removed  and  amply  compensated  through 
the  righteousness  of  Christ?  But  if  there  is  a 
rational  and  just  sense  in  which  God  may  establish 
his  covenant  with  infants,  there  is  the  highest  reason 
to  presume  that  he  has  actually  done  it,  and  that  they 
are  taken  into  his  covenant ;  for  if  he  graciously  con- 
descended to  establish  his  covenant  with  the  brute 
creation,  promising  no  more  to  drown  them  by  a 
deluge  of  waters  ;  and  appointed  a  standing  token  or 
memorial  of  this  his  covenant  with  them,  as  well  as 
with  man,  viz.  the  bow  in  the  clouds ;  much  more 
may  we  hope  that  he  has  estaUisJied  his  covenant  with 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  11 

there  was  a  covenant,  and  this  covenant  em- 
braced parents  and  their  children,  and  their 
seed  after  them.  But  for  a  more  full  and 
distinct  development  of  the  principle,  we 
must  refer  to  the  time  of  Abraham.  Him 
God  separated  from  the  heathen ;  with  him 
entered  into  a  covenant,  appointing  circumci- 
sion as  a  sign  and  seal  of  that  covenant.  The 
record  of  this  memorable  transaction  is  in  these 
words :  "  And  the  Lord  said  unto  Abraham, 
As  for  me,  behold  my  covenant  is  with  thee, 
and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations ; 
and  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to 
be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee, 
and  I  will  be  their  G-od.  And  this  is  my 
covenant  which  ye  shall  keep  between  me 
and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee — every  man- 
child  among  you  shall  be  circumcised.     Gen. 

infants  also,  promising  to  deliver  them  from  the  fatal 
consequences  of  the  fall ;  and  that  he  hath  appointed 
a  standing  token  or  sign  of  this  his  covenant  with 
them,  to  perpetuate  the  knowledge  and  remembrance 
of  it  in  the  Church." 


12         A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

xvii.  (Read  the  whole  chapter.)  In  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  this  gracious 
covenant,  Abraham  proceeded  forthwith  to 
bring  his  family  into  a  state  of  visible  church 
relationship  with  God,  making  use  of  circum- 
cision as  the  initiatory  rite  then  prescribed. 
And  when  Isaac  was  subsequently  born,  he 
also,  when  eight  days  old,  was  added  as  a 
member  of  the  same  visible  church,  by  the 
application  of  the  same  appointed  rite.  And 
thus  was  the  family  of  Abraham  separated 
from  the  world ;  and  by  a  formal  religious 
act,  taken  into  covenant  or  church  relation- 
ship with  God.  This  (we  insist  upon  it)  was 
not  a  national  aifair,  as  some  would  have  us 
to  believe,  for  the  apostle  referring  to  this 
very  thing  says,  "  And  the  scripture  foresee- 
ing that  God  would  justify  the  heathen 
through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel 
unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  na- 
tions of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Gal.  iii.  8,  9. 
Mark  the  language ;  "  preached  the  gospel  !'* 
This  proves  that  the  blessings  contemplated 
were  of  a  spiritual  and  not  of  a  national  cha- 
racter.    National  it  could  not  be,  for  the  affair 


VIEW  OF   BAPTISM.  13 

had  reference  to  but  one  family,  and  the  pos- 
terity of  Abraham  had  no  national  existence, 
and  no  civil  institutions  for  many  ages  after ; 
besides,  the  very  solemnity  with  which  the 
transaction  was  introduced  shows  its  purely 
religious  characte7\  The  record  is  this :  "  And 
when  Abram  was  ninety  years  old  and  nine, 
the  Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and  said  ui>to 
him,  I  am  the  Almighty  God,  walk  before 
me,  and  be  thou  perfect."  Then  follow  the 
words,  "And  I  will  make  my  covenant  be- 
tween me  and  thee."  And  further,  that  this 
was  not  a  national  affair,  appears,  if  possible, 
with  still  clearer  evidence,  from  this  language 
found  in  the  seventh  verse  :  "  And  I  will  es- 
tahlisJi  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee."  The  word  estab- 
lish, here  used,  shows  that  this  covenant  was 
but  the  renewal  of  a  previous  one ;  the  one, 
for  example,  made  with  Noah,  already  referred 
to,  and  which  has  never  been  called  a  national 
one  ;  and  I  would  here  remark,  that  as  the 
covenant  with  Noah  embraced  children,  as 
well  as  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  here  we 
have  additional  evidence  of  the  fact,  that 
2 


14       A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

infant  memhersMp  did  form  a  part  of  the 
original  constitution  of  the  church  of  God  on 
earth. 

The  Mosaic  dispensation,  which  was  estab- 
lished four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  furnishes  an  exam- 
ple of  another  covenant,  besides  that  of  cir- 
cumcision, into  which  infants  were  taken,  by 
which,  being  circumcised,  they  became  mem- 
bers of  the  Jewish  church  by  a  new,  and  it 
may  be  a  peculiar  bond.  You  will  find  it  in 
Deut.  xxix.  9 — 15.  "Ye  stand  this  day  all 
of  you  before  the  Lord  your  God ;  your  cap- 
tains of  your  tribes,  your  elders,  and  your 
officers,  all  the  men  of  Israel ;  your  lit- 
tle ones,  &c.,  that  thou  shouldst  enter  into 
covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  into  his 
oath  which  the  Lord  thy  God  maketh  with 
thee  this  day ;  that  he  may  establish  thee  to- 
day for  a  people  unto  himself,  and  that  he 
may  be  unto  thee  a  God,  as  he  hath  said  unto 
thee,  and  as  he  hath  sworn  unto  thy  fathers, 
to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob,"  &c. 
And  that  this  was  no  unmeaning  ceremony, 
as  it  respected  the  infant  portion  of  that  peo- 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  15 

pie,  Ezekiel  proves,  when  he  says:  (chap, 
xvi.  1—3,  20,  21,)  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
God  of  Israel  unto  Jerusalem  ....  thou 
hast  taken  thy  sons  and  thy  daughters  whom 
thou  hast  home  unto  me,  and  these  hast  thou 
sacrificed  unto  them,  to  be  devoured ;  .  .  .  . 
thou  hast  slain  my  children  and  delivered 
them,  to  cause  them  to  pass  through  the  fire 
for  them." 

The  reader  need  not  be  told  that  God  ex- 
pressly required  that  every  first-born  male 
should  be  consecrated  to  him,  and  be  called 
holy  unto  the  Lord,  (Luke  ii.  22,  23 ;  Exod. 
xiii.  2 ;  xxii.  29 ;  xxxiv.  19.)  Our  Lord  himself, 
when  an  infant,  was  brought  into  the  temple 
and  solemnly  devoted  to  God.  Among  the 
Jews,  every  child  on  the  day  of  its  circumcision 
was  called  Qhatan,  because  it  was  then  con- 
sidered as  espoused  to  God  and  united  to 
his  people.  (Schind.  Lex.  Pent,  page  677.) 
Hence  it  is  evident  Jewish  infants,  during  the 
Mosaic  dispensation,  as  well  as  previously,  in 
consequence  of  their  dedication  to  God,  and 
of  their  being  received  into  his  covenant, 
were,  in  an  especial  manner,  God's  children — 


16       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

Ms  property ;  that  is,  they  were  his  in  a 
sense  in  which  the  infants  of  the  idolatrous 
and  uncircumcised  gentiles  were  not.  Unless 
it  be  so,  there  is  no  meaning  in  these  passa- 
ges whatever.  The  bearing  of  this  argument 
cannot  be  mistaken.  Did  God  take  the  infants 
of  his  people  into  covenant  with  himself 
under  Abraham  and  Moses ;  and  command, 
as  a  standing  token  of  it,  that  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  should  be  solemnly  affixed  to  them? 
But  under  the  dispensation  of  Jesus  his  Son, 
has  he  made  no  such  manifestation  of  his 
regard  to  them — admitted  them  into  no  cove- 
nanty  nor  appointed  any  token  that  he  receives 
them  as  his  children,  and  that  he  will  be  to 
them  a  God  ?  How  improbable ;  nay,  how 
uncomfortable  the  thought !  Thanks  to  his 
mercy,  we  can  with  confidence  say  that  it  is 
not  so  ;  accordingly  our 

Second  affirmation  is  this :  Infant  member- 
ship thus  originally  instituted,  and  continued 
under  and  through  the  Levitical  economy, 
has  never  been  abolished.  Abolished !  Where 
is  the  abolishing  act  ?  It  cannot  be  found  in 
all  the  Bible  !    Abolished !    It  cannot  be,  for 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  17 

the  covenant  which  embraced  infants  was 
expressly  declared  to  be  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant. Abolished !  It  could  not  be,  for  it 
had  direct  reference  to  gospel  times;  and 
was  designed,  as  was  expressly  stated,  to  em- 
brace in  its  gracious  provisions  believers  of 
every  place  and  every  age.  This  the  apostle 
himself  positively  affirms.  I  give  you  his 
very  words:  "And  he  (Abraham)  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  the  faith  which  he  had,  being  yet 
uncircumcised,  that  he  might  be  father  of 
them  that  believe,  though  they  he  not  circum- 
cised ;''  that  is,  though  it  be  in  a  remote  age, 
when  circumcision  as  a  religious  rite  shall  no 
longer  exist.  But  some  tell  us,  that  infant 
membership  formed  a  part  of  the  old  dispen- 
sation ;  that  it  was  altogether  a  Jewish  affair; 
and  that  the  old  Jewish  dispensation  having 
passed  away,  infant  membership  has  passed 
away  with  it.  But  this  cannot  be ;  because 
infant  membership  was  instituted  long  before 
the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  had  any  existence  at 
all.  Indeed,  as  it  would  seem  to  make  this 
matter  perfectly  clear,  the  apostle  expressly 


18       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

tells  US  that  the  covenant  made  with  Ahra- 
ham,  and  the  law  given  by  Moses,  were  two 
entirely  distinct  things ;  and  that  they  had 
no  such  connection,  that  the  one  could  not  dis- 
annul the  other.  Hear  his  own  words,  Gal. 
iii.  17 :  "  And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant, 
which  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ, 
the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should 
make  the  promise  of  God  of  none  effect."  Now 
this  is  precisely  to  the  point,  and  is  perfectly 
conclusive ;  for  if  the  coming  in  of  the  Leviti- 
cal  or  Jewish  dispensation  could  not  disannul 
that  covenant  which  embraced  infants,  but 
rather  gave  occasion  to  further  and  peculiar 
ties,  as  we  have  seen,  surely  its  passing  away 
could  not.  And  if  the  abrogation  of  the  old 
Jewish  dispensation  could  not  abolish  the 
covenant,  what  could?  Nothing!  No,  the 
covenant  has  not  been  abolished.  It  cannot 
be,  for  it  is  declared  to  be  an  "  everlasting 
covenant ;"  and,  verily,  to  the  end  of  time 
it  will  remain  firm  and  stable,  based  upon 
the  promise  and  the  oath  of  God.  In  con- 
firmation of  the  correctness  of  our  views,  let 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  19 

it  be  remembered  that  the  covenant  being 
unchanged,  the  Church,  founded  upon  it,  of 
course  must  also  remain  the  same ;  and  this, 
I  repeat  it,  is  an  additional  evidence  that 
infant  membership  has  not  been  abolished ; 
and  that  the  Church  of  God,  amid  all  exter- 
nal changes,  is  really  one  and  the  same  is 
evident  from  the  words  of  the  Saviour :  "  The 
kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you, 
and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the 
fruits  thereof."  The  Church  of  God  on 
earth  is  here  included,  if  not  evidently  in- 
tended; and  certainly  the  mere  transferring 
of  an  object  from  one  to  another  can  effect 
no  material  change  in  that  object.  Again, 
that  the  Church  of  God  is  still  the  same 
under  both  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, is  also  evident  from  what  the 
apostle  says  about  the  good  olive  tree,  to 
which  he  likens  the  Church.  Rom.  xi. 
Speaking  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews  and 
the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  he  uses  the  fol- 
lowing language:  "If  some  of  the  branches 
be  broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive 
tree,  wert  graffed  in  among  them,  and  par- 


20       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

takest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive, 
boast  not  thyself  against  the  branches ;  but, 
if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but 
the  root  thee."  Here  the  church,  the  good 
olive  tree,  is  spoken  of  as  one ;  and  all  the 
changes  which  have  taken  place  are  repre- 
sented as  having  reference  to  the  branches, 
not  the  root  or  stock.  That,  amid  all  external 
changes,  remains  one  and  the  same.  And 
if  in  gospel  times  there  is  an  enlargement  of 
church  privileges  and  members,  this  is  only 
the  beautiful  and  exact  fulfilment  of  certain 
prophecies  found  in  the  fifty-fourth  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  and  in  numerous  other  places  in 
the  Old  Testament  scriptures  referring  to 
New  Testament  times ;  and  this  enlargement 
of  church  privileges  and  members  in  our  day 
can  no  more  afi'ect  the  identity  of  the  church 
itself,  than  the  adding  of  a  chamber  or  two 
to  some  marble  palace  can  change  the  iden- 
tity of  that  palace  which  has  been  standing 
on  the  same  spot,  defying  the  storms  and 
ravages  of  many  generations.  And  to 
crown  the  matter,  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians,  speaks  of  the  church  as  one  build- 


VIEW   OF  BAPTISM.  21 

ing,  "built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the 
chief  corner-stone."  Observe,  apostles  and 
prophets  are  here  linked  together,  and  cer- 
tainly one  corner-stone  can  denote  but  one 
building  ! 

Thirdly.  Baptism  has  taken  the  place  of 
circumcision.  We  argue  this  from  the  fact 
that,  according  to  the  scriptures,  both  are 
of  the  same  import,  and  are  made  to  answer 
similar  purposes.  Col.  ii.  11.  Each  is  made 
a  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  both  emblemati- 
cal of  spiritual  influences  which,  under  the 
Old  Testament  dispensation,  are  called  "  the 
circumcision  of  the  heart,"  and  under  the 
new,  "regeneration."  That  baptism  has 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision  is  also  evi- 
dent from  the  fact,  that  if  baptism  be  not 
now  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  as  circumcision 
formerly  was,  then  we  have  now  no  seal  of 
the  covenant  at  all.  And  if  baptism  be  not, 
at  the  present  time,  the  initiatory  or  recog- 
nizing ordinance  of  the  church,  then,  at  the 
present  time,  we  have  no  such  ordinance 
whatever.     Yes, 


22.      A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

"  Water  seals  the  blessing  now, 
That  once  was  sealed  with  blood." 

And  does  not  this  fall  in  precisely  with 
the  milder  character  of  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion, and  with  the  well  known  words  of  the 
Saviour,  "  My  yoke  is  easy  and  my  burden  is 
light?"  And  this  is  particularly  the  case, 
when  baptism  is  administered,  not  by  immer- 
sion, but  the  more  scriptural  mode,  as  we 
shall  hereafter  show,  of  pouring  or  sprinkling. 
And  now,  having  shown  that  infant  member- 
ship formed  a  part  of  the  original  constitu- 
tion of  the  church  of  God,  and  that  this 
membership  has  not  been  abolished,  it  fol- 
lows, as  a  matter  of  course,  that  infants  are 
entitled  to  membership  still.  They  are  to 
be  admitted  by  some  religious  ordinance  or 
other.  But  baptism  is  now  the  only  initia- 
tory rite  existing ;  and,  therefore,  infants  are 
to  be  baptized. 

Hence  1.  The  language  of  our  Saviour  : 
"  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God."  Now  by  "  the  kingdom  of  God" 
we  are  to  understand  either  the  church  on 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  23 

earth,  or  the  church  in  heaven.  If  it  be  the 
church  on  earth,  then  the  case  is  settled ;  for 
as  children  are  said  to  be  of  that  'kingdom^ 
certainly  their  right  to  membership  is  clear 
and  unquestionable ;  and  if  the  church  in 
heaven  be  meant,  the  case  is  equally  clear, 
for  if  they  are  worthy  of  membership  in  the 
church  above,  most  assuredly  they  are  wor- 
thy of  membership  in  the  church  below.  "  At 
another  time  he  took  a  little  child  into  his 
arms,  and  showing  it  to  his  disciples,  said, 
'Whosoever  shall  receive  one  such  little 
child  (this  child)  in  my  name  receiveth  me.' 
Matt,  xviii.  5;  Mark  ix.  37.  Now  the  re- 
ceiving a  little  child  in  Christ's  name,  must 
mean  the  considering  or  treating  it  as  stand- 
ing in  some  peculiar  relation  to  Christ,  as 
{io'c  Xpttf-rou  coi')  belonging  to  Christ ;  that  is, 
as  being  of  his  flock.  That  this  is  what  our 
Lord  means  hy  receiving  in  his  name,  he 
himself  has  shown  in  the  same  discourse,  ex- 
pressly explaining  it,  because  ye  belong  to 
Christ.  'For  whosoever  shall  give  you  a 
cup  of  water  to  drink,  in  my  name,  because 
ye  belong  to  Christ,  verily  I  say  unto  you  he 


24      A  PLAIN    AND    SCRIPTURAL 

shall  not  lose  his  reward.'  Mark  ix.  41. 
Hence  it  is  evident  infants  may  be,  yea  are 
to  be  received  in  Christ's  name ;  that  is,  to 
be  received  as  belonging  to  Christ,  or  as 
capable  of  standing,  and  actually  standing,  in 
some  peculiar  relation  to  him;  but  such  a 
relation  can  be  constituted  only  by  their 
being  solemnly  devoted  to  him,  and  being 
admitted  into  his  church  by  his  ministers." 
Besides,  from  our  Saviour's  saying,  "  Suifer 
little  children  to  come  to  me,"  it  appears  he 
thought  them  capable  of  being  his  disciples, 
because  to  come  to  hwiy  and  7iot  to  come  to 
him,  in  a  figurative  sense,  imply  being  prose- 
lytes or  not  to  his  religion  ;  and  the  original 
word  justifies  this  sense,  because  it  is  the 
word  from  which  proselyte  is  derived.  This 
is  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  he  makes  child- 
ren the  standard  of  qualification  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Mark  x.  14  ;  Matt,  xviii.  3. 
Thus  we  come  again  to  the  same  conclusion. 
Moreover,  I  would  ask  in  what  way  can  min- 
isters forbid  children  coming  to  Christ,  ex- 
cept by  debarring  them  from  admission  into 
the  visible  church  on  earth  ?     If  Clirist  was 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  25 

willing  to  receive  children,  do  we  follow  his 
example,  or  act  in  accordance  with  his  spirit, 
if  we  reject  them  ?  and  what  if  the  cry  of 
these  little  ones  thus  excluded  from  the  fold, 
should  enter  into  the  ears  of  Him  who  not 
only  said,.  "  Feed  my  sheep,"  but  also,  *'  feed 
my  lambs?"  But  in  further  confirmation  of 
our  doctrine,  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized, 
we  adduce 

2.  The  last  great  command  of  our  Sa- 
viour— "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  whatsoever 
I  have  commanded  you."  In  our  transla- 
tion, we  have  the  word  to  teach  repeated. 
This  is  tautological,  and  is  not  sanctioned  by 
the  original;  for  the  Greek  words  are  not 
the  same.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  ^a^s^rf-Doatf, 
and  in  the  second  StSaoxoirsj,  the  first  mean- 
ing unquestionably  to  disciple,  or  make  dis- 
ciples ;  and  the  other  to  teach.  By  this  com- 
mand all  nations  are  to  be  discipled  and  bap- 
tized^ and  afterwards  taught.  And  now  if  all 
nations  are  to  be  discipled  and  baptized,  and 
3 


2(3  A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

placed  upon  the  roll  of  those  who  are  to  be 
taught  the  things  pertaining  to  the  kingdom, 
as  children  form  a  part  of  all  nations,  they 
are  certainly  entitled  to  the  same  privilege 
with  others.  And  with  regard  to  the  matter 
of  discipling  all  nations,  the  Saviour  in  his 
last  command  seems  to  point  out  the  very 
mode  and  manner  in  which  this  is  to  be 
done,  viz.  by  baptizing.  As  when  Paul  and 
Barnabas  are  said  to  have  returned  to  cer- 
tain places,  confirming  the  souls  of  the  disci- 
ples, exhorting  them  to  continue  in  the  faith,* 
we  are  informed  of  the  way  and  manner  in 
which  they  confirmed  the  souls  of  these  dis- 
ciples ;  namely,  by  exhorting  them  to  con- 
tinue in  the  faith ;  so  the  apostles,  and  all 
duly  authorized  ministers  were  to  make  dis- 
ciples by  baptizing;  and  certainly  in  this 
way  and  manner  infants  may  be  discipled 
as  well  as  others ;  aye,  and,  as  we  believe,  in 
apostolic  times  were  thus  discipled. f     For, 

■^  The  conjunction  and  is  not  in  the  original,  and 
therefore  the  latter  member  of  the  sentence  is  sim- 
ply explanatory  of  the  former. 

t  "  Suppose,'^  says  one,  "  there  were  a  master,  who 


VIEW  OF   BAPTISM.  27 

3.  There  is  the  case  of  household  baptisms^ 
which  falls  in  very  naturally  with  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism,  and  which  cannot  very 
easily  be  accounted  for  on  any  other  princi- 
ple. Let  it  be  remembered,  that  there  are 
no  less  than  four  cases  upon  sacred  record : 
the  household  of  Lydia,  of  Stephanas,  of  Cor- 
nelius, and  the  Jailer.  Can  we  suppose  for 
one  moment,  that  there  was  not  a  single  child 
in  one  of  these  four  households  ?  The  thing 
is  incredible  !  For  now  let  any  individual  just 
spread  the  wing ;  let  him  hover  over  any  con- 
tinent or  island  in  this  wide  world,  and  let 

had  the  secret  of  predisposing  a  child  to  future 
learning,  or  of  giving  a  principle  or  power  of  future 
knowledge ;  would  it  not  be  a  very  desirable  and 
proper  thing  to  put  children  under  his  management  ? 
and  when  done,  would  it  not  be  very  reasonable  to 
account  such  children,  though  infants,  scholars  or 
disciples  of  such  a  master,  even  before  they  should 
be  actually  taught?  Yet  Mr.  Tombs,  a  learned  anti- 
pedobaptist,  acknowledges  that  the  grace  of  God  may 
put  infants  into  Christ,  and  unite  them  to  him  by 
his  Spirit.'^  Among  the  Romans,  an  apprentice,  as 
soon  as  it  was  agreed  he  should  become  such,  and 
before  he  had  received  any  instruction,  was  called 
(discipulus)  a  disciple. 


28       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

him  alight  on  any  spot  whatever,  in  the  city 
or  in  the  wilderness  ;  and  let  him  enter  into 
any  of  the  first  four  houses  nearest  at  hand, 
and  baptize  all  the  inmates  in  each,  and  if 
some  child  be  not  baptized  it  would  be  strange 
indeed.  He  might  make  the  experiment  a 
hundred  times,  and  I  fully  believe  there  would 
be  no  failure  in  a  single  case.  Indeed,  the 
account  which  is  given  of  the  baptism  of  Ly- 
dia's  household  seems  to  admit  of  no  reason- 
able doubt,  so  far  as  her  family  is  concerned. 
The  record  is  this :  Acts  xvi.  14,  15 ;  "  And 
a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of 
purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira,  heard  us, 
whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended 
unto  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul ; 
and  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  house- 
hold^ she  besought  us,  saying.  If  ye  have 
judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come 
into  my  house  and  abide  there ;  a'nd  she  con- 
strained us."  "Whose  heart  did  the  Lord  open  ? 
Lydia's.  Any  other  mentioned  ?  Not  another  ! 
and  yet  it  is  said  she  ivas  baptized,  and  her 
household.  But  what  else  ?  She  brought  us, 
saying,  If  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful. 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  29 

Observe  me^  not  u%.  If  any  other  adults 
were  converted,  why  was  there  not  some  men- 
tion made  of  them  also  ?  And  she  constrained 
us.  If  other  adults  were  converted  and  bap- 
tized by  Paul,  I  think,  judging  from  what  I 
have  seen  in  our  day,  their  affection  for  the 
apostle  would  have  induced  them  to  unite 
with  Lydia,  in  urging  him  to  abide  with  them 
some  days.  I  feel  quite  sure  that  young 
converts  in  similar  circumstances  in  our  times, 
could  not  and  would  not  be  altogether  silent. 
I  believe  that  on  that  occasion  Lydia  was  the 
only  adult  converted;  who  can  say  there 
were  others  ?  We  are  told  that  %lie  was  bap- 
tized, and  her  houseliold.  I  believe  that  her 
household  embraced  children ;  who  can  say 
it  did  not  ? 

4.  There  is  a  passage  in  Cor.  vii.  14, 
which  very  naturally  falls  in  with  our  doc- 
trine; and  which,  on  any  other  principle, 
seems  to  be  altogether  inexplicable.  It  is 
this.  "The  unbelieving  husband  is  sancti- 
fied by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  by 
the  husband,  else  were  your  children  unclean, 
but  now  are  they  holy."  Unclean!  What 
3* 


30      A  PXAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

does  the  apostle  mean  ?  Illegitimate  ?  Cer- 
tainly not ;  for  it  would  be  strange  indeed  if 
it  required  one  parent  to  be  a  believer  to 
legitimatize  the  offspring.  No,  no !  this  can- 
not be.  What  then?  A  Jew  would  have 
caught  the  idea  immediately,  for  he  well 
knew  that,  according  to  the  long  established 
usage,  the  term  unclean  denoted  unfitness  to 
he  admitted  to  church  ordinances ;  and  the 
term  holy  just  the  reverse.  And  I  ask,  does 
not  the  language  of  the  apostle,  on  our  prin- 
ciples, present  just  such  a  case  as  might  have 
been  expected  to  occur  ?  Paul  having  taught 
that  all  believers  were  recognized  as  the  child- 
ren of  Abraham,  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promise — the  case,  when  both  parents  are  be- 
lievers, would  be  clear ;  their  children  would, 
of  course  be  embraced  in  the  covenant.  But 
if  only  one  parent  be  a  believer,  what  then  ? 
Why,  says  Paul,  the  gospel,  leans  to  the  side 
of  mercy.  Let  the  child  be  admitted  on  the 
faith  of  one  parent.  How  natural  is  this 
interpretation;  and  if  infants  were  admitted 
to  church  membership  in  apostolic  times,  as 
we  know  was  the  case,  how  natural  was  it 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  31 

that  just  such  a  case  should  have  occurred  !* 
But  this  leads  me  to  mention  in  the 

Fourth  and  last  place  that  the  testimony 
of  "  the  fathers"  in  favour  of  infant  baptism 
is  full,  clear,  positive,  and  express.  Justin 
Martyr,  who  lived  immediately  after  the  apos- 
tolic times,  says  in  so  many  words,  that  in 
the  earliest  days  of  the  Christian  church 
baptism  was  practised  in  the  place  of  circum- 
cision. Ireneeus,  who  flourished  not  long 
after,  states  expressly  that  the  chui'ch  learned 
from  the  apostles  to  baptize  children. 

*  It  is  plain  from  this  passage  that  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation, as  well  as  the  Jewish,  makes  a  distinction 
between  the  children  of  believers  and  the  children 
of  infidels.  Some  of  the  Corinthian  converts  having 
unbelieving  yoke-fellows,  doubted  the  lawfulness  of 
cohabiting  with  them,  lest  among  other  evil  conse- 
quences the  offspring  of  such  unequal  marriages 
should  be  deemed  impure  and  unmeet  to  be  taken 
into  covenant  with  God.  The  doubt  seemed  just, 
being  grounded  on  the  conduct  of  Ezra  x.  1 — 3. 
But  the  apostle  tells  them  that  the  unbelieving  yoke- 
fellow icas  so  far  sanctified  by  [to  or  because  of)  the 
believing,  as  that  their  children  (which  would  be 
otherwise  unclean)  are  now  Jwlj/.  Thus  the  state  or 
condition  of  the  children  in  respect  to  Jwliness  or 


82       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

In  a  tract  recently  published  it  is  stated 
that  Tertullian  opposed  infant  baptism  as  an 
innovation  ;  but  the  truth  is,  he  is  an  incon- 
testable witness  to  its  long  continued  preva- 
lence. He  did  indeed  advise  that  the  baptism 
of  infants  should  be  deferred,  except  in  cases 
of  necessity ;  but  he  appears  to  have  been  quite 

uncleanness  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  belief  or 
unbelief  of  their  parents.  The  children  of  unbe- 
lievers are  unclean,  that  is,  they  do  not  stand  in  any 
visible  covenant  relation  to  Jehovah.  The  children 
of  believers  are  holy  ;  that  is,  holy  in  the  same  sense 
the  Jews  were  holy  as  a  nation  ;  that  is,  as  standing 
in  a  peculiar  relation  to  God.  The  sentiment,  there- 
fore, of  an  infant's  holiness,  and  of  the  propriety  of 
its  being  brought  into  the  church  and  solemnly  dedi- 
cated to  God,  is  quite  scriptural  and  rational.  The 
infant  Jesus  was  brought  to  the  temple  for  that  pur- 
pose. Luke  ii.  22,  23.  The  sacred  ceremony  under 
which  he  passed,  was  of  the  same  nature  as  the 
solemn  presentation  of  our  infants  to  God,  at  the  time 
of  their  baptism.  It  may  be  added  in  confirmation, 
that  in  the  Jewish  sense  to  he  uncircumcised  is  to  he 
unclean.  Compare  Acts  x.  28  with  xi.  3,  8,  9.  Hence 
the  Ixx.  say  that  Joshua  cleansed  the  children  of 
Israel,  when  the  Hebrew  text  says  he  circumcised 
them,  Josh  v.  4.  See  also  Isaiah  vi.  13  ;  Ezra  ix.  2; 
Lev.  xxi.  23;  Col.  ii.  11. 


VIEW0FBAPTI3M.  33 

singular  in  this  his  advice.  Some  there  are 
indeed  who  understand  Tertullian  in  the  pas- 
sages referred  to,  as  intending  only  the  infants 
of  heathen  parents,  which  Christians  of  those 
days  were  wont  to  baptize  when  they  came 
into  their  power,  by  purchase  or  conquest ; 
and  that  such  was  his  meaning  may  be  urged 
upon  probable  grounds.  But  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  Tertullian's  reasoning  or  ortho- 
doxy on  this  or  any  other  point.  He  is  cited 
merely  as  a  witness  to  a  matter  of  fact.  His 
words  are,  Itaque  pro  cujusque  personse  con- 
ditioner &c.  "  Therefore,  according  to  every 
one's  condition,  disposition,  and  also  age,  the 
delaying  of  baptism  is  more  pro fitahle  ;  espe- 
cially in  the  case  of  children."  And  again, 
Quid  festinat  innocens  sstas  ad  remissionem 
Ijecoatorum  ?  Quid  enim  necesse  est  sp)onsore§ 
etiam  peyHculo  ingeri,  &c.  "  Why  does  that 
innocent  age  make  such  haste  to  the  remission 
of  sins  ?  (i.  e.  to  baptism.)  What  necessity 
is  there  that  the  sponsors  (i.  e.  god-fathers) 
be  brought  into  danger  ?"  These  questions 
plainly  prove  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants 
in  those  days. 


34       A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

This  author  lived  about  a  hundred  years 
after  the  age  of  the  apostles,  and  is  the  only 
person  among  the  ancients  who  advises  even 
to  defer  the  baptism  of  infants,  which  he  does 
under  the  superstitious  notion  that  baptism 
literally  washed  away  all  sins  previously  com- 
mitted, and  that  sins  subsequently  committed 
were  extremely  dangerous,  because  the  rite 
of  baptism  could  not  be  repeated.  On  the 
same  ground  that  this  author  recommends 
the  deferring  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  he 
advises  "that  unmarried  persons  should  be 
kept  off  from  this  sacrament,  who  are  likely 
to  come  into  temptation;  ....  until  they 
either  marry  or  be  confirmed  in  continence," 
for,  says  he, "  those  who  understand  the  weight 
of  baptism  will  rather  dread  the  receiving  of 
it  than  the  delaying  of  it."  (  Tertullian  de 
Baptis.  cap.  18.) 

It  may  be  interesting  to  some  readers  to 
know  what  other  early  Christian  writers  have 
said  upon  this  subject.  They  are  undoubtedly 
good  witnesses  to  matters  of  fact  within  their 
knowledge,  although  we  may  justly  reject 
many  of  their  opinions  as  absurd  or  unsound. 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  85 

Origen,  who  was  cotemporary  with  Tertullian, 
(Horn.  viii.  on  Levit.  chap,  xii.,)  has  these 
words  :  "  Infants  also  by  usage  of  the  church 
are  baptized."  Again,  on  Luke  he  says: 
"  Parvuli  haptizantur  in  remissionem,"  &c. 
"  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins."  In  another  treatise  (Com.  on  Epist. 
Rom.  1.  5)  he  says,  ^'Pro  hoc  et  ecclesia,''  &c. 
*'  For  this  also  it  was  that  the  church  had 
from  the  apostles  a  tradition  or  order  to  give 
baptism  to  infants." 

Cyprian,  who  wrote  about  one  hundred 
and  fifty  years  after  the  apostles,  gives,  if 
possible,  a  more  indubitable  testimony  to  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism.  In  his  time, 
(A.  D.  253,)  a  council  of  sixty-six  bishops 
having  been  convened  at  Carthage,  one  Fi- 
dus,  a  country  bishop,  having  entertained 
some  doubt,  not  whether  infants  should  be 
baptized  at  all,  but  whether  baptism  might 
be  lawfully  given  them  before  they  were  eight 
days  old,  according  to  the  law  of  circumci- 
sion ;  they  unanimously  decreed  that  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  was  not  to  he  deferred  till  the 
eighth  day,  and  after  many  things  said  to 


36       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

the  point,  they  conclude  thus :  "  Cwterum 
si  homines  impedire  aliquid,"  kc.  "But  if 
anything  shouki  hinder  men  from  baptism,  it 
will  be  heinous  sins,  which  will  debar  the 
adult  and  mature  therefrom ;  and  if  those 
who  have  sinned  extremely,  yet  afterward 
believe,  are  baptized,  (and  no  man  is  prohi- 
bited from  this  grace,)  how  much  more  ought 
not  an  infant  to  be  prohibited,  who  being 
but  just  born  is  guilty  of  no  sin  but  of  ori- 
ginal, which  he  contracted  from  Adam? 
Wherefore,  dearly  beloved,  it  is  our  opinion 
that  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of  God,  who 
is  kind  and  benign  to  all,  none  ought  to  be 
prohibited  by  us,  which  as  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served with  respect  to  all,  so  especially  with 
respect  to  infants,  and  those  who  are  hut  just 
born,  who  deserve  our  help  and  the  Divine 
mercy."  (Cyprian  Epist.  ad  Fidum.  Epist. 
64.) 

This  extract  proves  beyond  reasonable  dis- 
pute, that  it  was  the  constant  and  estabhshed 
practice  of  the  Church  at  the  time  this 
author  lived  to  baptize  infants.  It  shows 
also  that  no  regard  whatever  was  paid  to  the 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  37 

advice  of  Tertullian  on  this  subject,  if  indeed 
his  advice  was  general,  and  not  confined,  as 
before  suggested,  to  the  infants  of  heathen 
parents. 

If  now  we  may  suppose  that  the  bishops 
composing  this  council  (or  as  we  should  say 
Synod)  were  born  of  Christian  parents, 
(and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  some 
of  them  were,)  they  must, have  known  whe- 
ther they  were  baptized  in  infancy,  by  the 
information  of  their  parents ;  and  if  we  may 
suppose  that  some  of  them  were  advanced  in 
life,  (as  probably  some  were,)  the  practice 
may  thus  be  traced  through  them  to  within 
eighty  or  ninety  years  of  the  age  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  the  Christian  parents  of  these 
bishops,  or  of  such  of  them  as  were  advanced 
in  life,  could  not  but  certainly  know  what 
the  practice  and  the  appointment  of  the 
apostles  was  in  this  matter.* 

*  To  avoid  misconception  as  to  the  character  and 
functions  of  these  bishops,  the  reader  will  do  well  to 
consult  Abbe  Fleurj's  discourse  upon  the  history  of 
the  first  six  ages  of  the  church,  in  which  he  will  find 
(§y.)  a  passage  to  the  following  efi'ect : — "The 
bishops  (viz.  of  the  first  six  centuries,)  being  entirely 
4 


38       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

The  Clementine  Constitutions,  a  book  es- 
teemed bj  some  to  be  of  great  antiquity,  and 
by  all  acknowledged  to  have  been  extant  in 
the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  contains  this  ex- 
occupied  with  their  functions,  thought  not  how  they 
should  be  clothed  or  lodged.  They  gave  no  great 
attention  to  the  temporalities  of  their  church.  The 
care  of  those  they  left  to  the  deacons  or  to  stewards, 
"but  they  did  not  abandon  to  others  the  spiritual. 
Their  occupation  was  prayer,  instruction,  correc- 
tion. They  entered  into  every  possible  detail*  It 
was  for  this  reason,  that  their  dioceses  were  so  small ; 
so  that  one  person  only  would  be  sufficient,"  (i.  e. 
for  a  diocese,)  *'  and  might  Jcnow  hij  himself  the  whole 
of  his  focJc.  For  to  act  by  others,  and  from  a  dis- 
tance, one  bishop  would  have  been  sufficient  for  the 
whole  Church.  It  is  true  there  were  priests"  (he 
means  elders)  "  to  lighten  their  labours  even  in 
the  spiritual,  to  preside  at  prayers,  and  to  celebrate 
the  holy  sacrifice,"  (he  means  the  Lord's  Supper,) 
"  in  case  of  the  absence  or  sickness  of  the  bishop,  to 
baptize ....  in  case  of  necessity.  Sometimes  the 
bishop  confided  to  them  even  the  ministry  of  the 
word,  for  regularly  it  was  only  the  bishop  who 
preached.  The  priests"  (i.  e.  elders)  "were  his  council, 
and  the  senate  of  the  chui-ch,  raised  to  this  rank  on 
account  of  their  ecclesiastical  knowledge,  their  wis- 
dom and  experience."     Changing   a  few  terms  in 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM."  39 

press  admonition :  ''  Baptize  your  infants, 
and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
nition of  God  ;  for  he  says,  '  Suffer  little  child- 
ren to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not.'  " 
Several  other  testimonies  might  be  pro- 
duced from  Clemens  Romanus,  Hermas,  the 
Recognitions  of  St.  Peter,  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, Justin  Martyr,  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Basil,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom  and  Jerome, 
very  full  and  conclusive  to  the  purpose ;  but 
they  are  too  long  to  be  inserted  in  this  trea- 
tise. There  are  some,  however,  in  the  writings 
of  Augustine  and  Pelagius  so  very  remarka- 
ble and  decisive  that  they  must  not  be  omitted. 
These  two  celebrated  persons  lived  and  wrote 
about  three  hundred  and  ten  years  after  the 
age  of  the  apostles.  They  are  not  cited  to 
prove  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  univer- 
sally practised  in  their  days,  but  to  show  that 

this  account,  as  they  ought  to  be  changed,  it  is  easy 
to  trace  in  it  substantially  an  organization  closely 
similar  to  a  Presbyterian  church,  consisting  of  a 
minister  and  a  bench  of  elders.  Such,  undoubtedly, 
were  the  sixty-six  bishops  composing  the  council 
convened  at  Carthage,  (A.  D.  253,)  above  referred  to. 


40      A  PLAIN     AND    SCRIPTURAL 

they  considered  it  to  have  been  the  constant 
and  unvarying  practice  of  the  church  from 
the  beginning. 

Augustine,  in  his  controversy  with  Pelagius 
about  original  sin,  in  order  to  prove  that  in- 
fants were  tainted  with  it,  frequently  urges 
an  argument  from  their  baptism.  He  asks 
Pelagius  "  why  infants  are  baptized  for  the 
remission  of  sin,  if  they  have  none."  Pela- 
gius seems  greatly  embarrassed  by  this  argu- 
ment, and  any  one  can  see  how  much  it  con- 
cerned him  to  deny  the  fact  that  infants  were 
and  had  been  baptized  from  the  beginning, 
if  he  could  have  done  so.  Had  infant  baptism 
been  an  innovation  or  a  departure  from  the 
apostolic  practice,  Pelagius  was  too  acute, 
and  too  well  informed,  not  to  have  known  the 
fact  and  the  importance  of  it  to  his  cause. 
Yet  so  far  from  attempting  anything  like 
this  he  affirms  the  fact,  though  he  endeavours 
by  various  shifts  to  evade  its  force. 

Some  of  his  adversaries,  having  drawn  as 
a  consequence  of  his  opinion,  that  infants  are 
not  to  he  baptized,  he  warmly  disclaims  it,  and 
complains  with  indignation,  "  Se  ah  hominibus 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  41 

infamari  quod  neget  aparvuUs  haptismi  sacra- 
mentum,"  &c. ; "  that  he  had  been  slanderously 
represented  by  men  as  denying  the  sacrament 
of  baptism  to  infants,  and  promising  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  without  the  redemption  of 
Christ."  He  adds,  " Nunqiiam  se  vel  im^num 
aliquem  hdereticum  audisse  qui  hoe  quod 
proposnit  de  parvulis  dicerety'kG. ;  "that  he 
never  heard,  no  not  even  any  impious  heretic 
who  would  say  that  which  he  had  mentioned, 
viz.  that  unhaptized  infants  are  not  liable  to 
condemnation  for  the  first  man,  and  that  they 
are  not  to  be  cleansed  by  the  regeneration  of 
baptism."  He  then  proceeds,  "  Quis  enim 
ita  evangelicse  lectionis  ignarus  est,''  &c. 
"for  who  is  so  ignorant  of  that  which  is  read 
in  the  gospel  as,  I  do  not  say,  boldly  to  afiirm, 
but  even  lightly  to  suggest,  or  even  to  imagine 
such  a  thing  ?  In  a  word,  who  can  be  so  im- 
pious as  to  hinder  infants  from  being  baptized, 
and  born  again  in  Christ,  and  so  make  them 
miss  of  the  kingdom  of  God?" 

After  citing  John  iii.  5,  he  goes  on  thus : 
"  Quis  ille  tarn  impius  est  qui  eujusUhet  deta- 
ils pfarvulo,''  &c.,  "  Who  is  there  so  impious 
4* 


42      A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

as  to  refuse  to  an  infant,  of  what  age  soever, 
the  common  redemption  of  mankind?"  (See 
also  August,  de  Peccato  Origin,  cap.  17,  18, 
de  Pec.  Merit,  cap.  6.  Serm.  x»  de  Verb. 
Apost.) 

To  estimate  this  piece  of  testimony  rightly, 
the  reader  should  know  that  Pelagius,  and  his 
co-worker  Celestius,  were  born,  the  one  in  Bri- 
tain and  the  other  in  Ireland.  They  lived  a 
long  time  in  Rome,  at  that  time  the  centre  of 
the  world.  They  were  both  for  some  time  at 
Carthage,  in  Africa — then  the  one  settled  at 
Jerusalem  ;  the  other  travelled  through  the 
East,  and  visited  all  the  noted  Greek  and 
Eastern  churches  in  Europe  and  Asia.  If 
there  had  been  then  any  church  or  number 
of  churches  in  any  part  of  the  world,  either 
at  that  time  or  in  any  preceding  age  of  the 
church,  who  denied  baptism  to  infants,  it  is 
incredible  that  these  two  learned  and  saga- 
cious persons  should  not  have  heard  of  it,  nor 
would  they  have  failed  to  take  advantage  of 
it,  to  check  the  triumph  of  their  opponents, 
and  wrest  from  them  this  argument,  by  which 
they  were  more  grievously  pressed  than  by 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  43 

any  other.  But  instead  of  such  a  denial  of  the 
fact,  they  endeavoured  to  evade  its  force  some- 
times by  alleging  that  infants  have  actual  sin, 
and  that  their  peevishness  of  temper  is  to  be 
considered  such.  Sometimes  they  urged  that 
infants  had  pre-existed,  and  it  was  for  sins 
committed  in  some  former  state  they  were 
baptized ;  sometimes  they  said  they  were  not 
baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  but  that 
they  may  be  made  heirs  of  the  kingdom — 
sometimes,  that  they  were  baptized  for  for- 
giveness, not  that  they  had  any  sin,  but  that 
the  uniformity  of  the  words  might  be  kept; 
or  because  they  were  baptized  into  the  church 
where  forgiveness  was  to  be  had,  and  with  a 
sacrament  which  had  the  means  of  forgive- 
ness for  those  who  wanted  it. 

To  such  extreme  difficulties  they  saw  them- 
selves reduced,  in  order  to  reconcile  their  opi- 
nion with  the  baptism  of  infants,  all  of  which 
would  have  been  removed  instantly  by  deny- 
ing the  fact  that  infants  were  or  ought  to  be 
baptized.  But  the  fact  is  that  infant  baptism 
was,  at  that  time,  as  Celestius  confessed,  ac- 
cording to  the  rule  of  the  universal  church. 


44       A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

Iso  one  can,  I  think,  in  view  of  this  testimony, 
successfully  deny  the  universal  prevalence  of 
infant  baptism  in  apostolic  times;*  and  for 
many  centuries  after.  Now,  how  shall  we 
account  for  this,  if  the  doctrine  of  infant 
baptism  be  not  correct?  If  these  ancient 
and  renowned  fathers  were  simply  giving 
their  views  of  what  they  deemed  right  and 
proper,  we  might  all  feel  a  perfect  liberty  to 
exercise  our  own  judgment  in  the  premises ; 
but  when  they  perfectly  agree  in  the  simple 
statement  of  a  matter  of  fact,  certainly  their 
testimony  deserves  as  much  credit  as  that 
of  any  other  historian.  Even  spurious  writ- 
ings, if  incontestably  ancient,  may  furnish 
good  evidence  of  a  fact  like  this.  And  now, 
in  view  of  all  these  things,  to  deny  that  in- 
fant membership  was  recognized,  and  infant 
baptism  was  practised,  in  the  earliest  and 
palmiest  days  of  the  church,  seems  to  me 
much  the  same  as  to  deny  that  Christ  ever 
taught,   or  the   apostles   ever  lived,  or   the 

^  It  is  remarkable  that  those  who  tell  us  that 
tminersion  was  practised  in  primitive  times,  also  tell 
us  that  children  also  were  immersed. 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  45 

martyrs  ever  suffered ;  and  yet,  in  these  la- 
ter ages,  this  ehurcli  memhership  of  infants 
divinely  appointed  and  never  repealed;  this 
blessed  privilege,  made  sacred  by  a  thousand 
hallowed  associations,  is  to  be  abolished  and 
set  aside  as  an  "evil  and  a  curse."  How? 
By  any  positive  command  ?  No !  Such  can- 
not be  shown.  How  then  abolished  and  set 
aside?  By  inference,  and  that  inference  not 
good.  I  repeat  it,  that  inference  not  good. 
I  will  now  mention  some  of  the  things  most 
relied  upon,  and  then  let  the  reader  do  his 
own  thinking,  and  judge  for  himself. 

1.  It  is  said  that  there  is  no  precept  in 
all  the  Bible  for  infant  baptism  ;  and,  there- 
fore, "infants  should  not  be  baptized."  I 
answer,  There  is  no  precept  in  all  the  Bible 
for  female  communion,  and,  therefore,  on 
the  same  principles  females  must  not  be  per- 
mitted to  commune.  There  is  no  precept 
for  observing  the  Christian  Sabbath;  and, 
therefore,  we  must  not  observe  the  Christian 
Sabbath — nor  for  family  worship,  and  there- 
'  fore  we  must  not  have  family  worship.  No 
precept  for  infant  baptism?     It   was    not 


46        A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTUKAL 

necessary.  Infant  membership  divinely 
appointed,  infant  baptism,  as  we  have  shown, 
follows  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  prin- 
ciple settled,  there  was  no  occasion  for  any 
further  legislation  upon  the  subject.  The 
principle  settled,  the  matter  of  duty  is  plain. 
Not  long  since,  I  saw  that  a  reward  of  one 
thousand  dollars  was  offered  to  any  one  who 
could  produce  any  precept  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament for  infant  baptism.  I  think  we  may 
very  safely  offer  a  reward  (if  such  offers  could 
prove  anything)  ten  times  greater  than  that, 
to  any  one  who  can  point  out  any  precept  in 
the  New  Testament  abolishing  infant  mem- 
bership. And  this  is  the  precept  which  is 
most  needed — which  is  absolutely  necessary  ; 
for  even  in  human  governments,  a  law  once 
enacted  is  always  in  force  until  repealed. 
Now,  the  law  touching  infant  membership 
was  enacted ;  where  is  the  record  of  its  repeal? 
By  a  positive  precept,  infant  membership 
became  a  law  of  the  church,  of  course  it  re- 
quires a  positive  precept  to  annul  it  ?  Where 
is  this  precept  to  be  found,  if  infant  mem- 
bership  has   been   abolished,   I   ask   again. 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  47 

Where  is  this  abolishing  act  ?  And  if 
abolished,  by  whom  abolished  ?  Not  by 
John  the  Baptist,  for  he  made  no  pretension 
to  any  such  power ;  nor  by  our  Lord,  for  he 
said — "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;"  as  if  he  had  said,  "  I 
am  the  Head  of  the  church ;  these  are  mem- 
bers ;  suffer  the  little  ones,  therefore,  to  come 
unto  me,  their  Head,  and  forbid  them  not." 
Forbid  them !  How  can  ministers  forbid 
children  coming  to  Christ,  except  by  debar- 
ring them  from  membership  in  that  church  of 
which  Christ  is  the  Head  ?  And  what  meant 
the  Saviour  by  these  words:  "Whosoever 
receiveth  this  little  child  in  my  name,  re- 
ceiveth  me  ?"  Certainly  he  meant  that  little 
children,  or  infants,  should,  in  some  way  or 
other,  be  publicly  or  officially  received  in  his 
name  ;  and  those  who  in  church  matters 
will  have  nothing  to  do  with  children  or  in- 
fants, I  ask  in  what  way  do  they  publicly 
or  officially  receive  them  ?  But  if  infant 
membership  has  been  abolished,  I  ask  once 
more,  By  whom  abolished  ?     We  have  shown 


48       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

that  it  was  not  abolished  by  John  the  Bap- 
tist, nor  by  our  Saviour.  Well,  then,  was  it 
abolished  by  the  apostle  Peter  ?  He  had  the 
special  honour  of  throwing  open  the  doors  of 
the  Christian  church  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
and  the  special  honour  a  little  after  of  first 
preaching  the  gospel  to  the  gentiles — did  he 
abolish  infant  membership  ?  I  think  not ;  for 
if,  when  he  went  and  preached  the  gospel  to 
Cornelius,  many  in  Jerusalem  contended  with 
him,  saying,  "  Thou  wentest  in  unto  men  un- 
circumcised,  and  didst  eat  with  them,"  can 
we,  for  one  moment,  suppose  that  none  would 
have  contended  with  him,  if  he  had  abolished 
that  which  was  originally  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  that  which  was  made  sacred  by  its 
associations  with  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
and  long  usage,  and  parental  feelings  too  ? 
This  is  worthy  of  serious  thought.  If  Peter's 
acting  contrary  to  certain  Jewish  prejudices, 
in  a  matter  comparatively  of  small  import- 
ance, occasioned  much  excitement,  would  his 
abolishing  a  precious  privilege,  a  privilege 
esteemed  for  many  ages  previously  peculiarly 
sacred  and  dear,  have  occasioned  no  excite- 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  49 

ment  at  all?  The  thing  is  incredible;  and 
this  very  silence  itself  is  convincing  proof 
that  infant  membership  was  not  abolished  by 
Peter,  nor  any  other  person  in  apostolic 
times.  No,  nor  was  any  atte7npt  made  to 
abolish  it,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  for 
many  ages  after.  In  this  matter  Tertullian, 
in  the  second  century,  stands  alone  for  many, 
very  many  long  ages  ;  and  even  he,  although 
he  opposed  infant  baptism  on  the  ground  of 
inexpediency,  never  it  seems  denied  the  perpe- 
tuity of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  or  the  right 
of  infants  to  church  membership.  The  fact 
is,  that  infant  membership  was  not  opposed, 
so  far  as  I  can  learn  from  history,  nor  was  it 
proposed  even  to  defer  it  until  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration  began  to  prevail, 
or  the  idea  that  water  baptism  was  not 
merely  a  symbolical  or  initiatory  rite,  but  a 
kind  of  saving  ordinance,  which  literally 
washed  away  all  sins  previously  committed. 
This  idea  induced  many,  as  in  the  case  of 
Constantine,  to  put  off  baptism  until  death 
seemed  to  be  near  at  hand.  And  we  know 
some  of  the  evils  which  have  flowed  from  this 
5 


50         A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

source,  even  in  our  day.  The  matter  then 
here  involved  is  one  of  great  importance, 
and  the  question,  when  and  by  whom  was 
infant  membership  abolished,  is  a  very  serious 
one  ;  and  as  the  Bible  says  some  startling 
things  touching  those  who  '''add  to,''  or 
^Hake  from,''  what  God  has  commanded,  I 
solemnly  declare,  that  until  an  act  abolishing 
infant  membership  can  be  pointed  out,  I  for 
one  would  no  more  dare  to  touch  that  insti- 
tution of  divine  appointment,  than  I  would 
the  throne  of  God;  and  yet,  without  an 
annulling  precept,  or  even  the  shadow  of  such 
a  thing,  it  is  to  be  set  aside  by  infereyice,  and 
that  too  by  those  who,  in  the  matter  of  bap- 
tism, are  wont  to  deny  the  propriety  of  all 
inference,  and  insist  upon  the  necessity  of 
some  positive  command !  This  is  strange 
indeed. 

2.  It  is  said  that  'infants  can  know 
nothing  of  the  nature  or  design  of  baptism, 
and  therefore  they  ought  not  to  he  baptized,'^ 
I  answer,  infants  in  ancient  times  could  know 
nothing  of  the  nature  or  design  of  circumci- 
sion, and  therefore  infants  in  ancient  times 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  51 

ought  not  to  have  been  ch*cumcised.  This  is 
speaking  rather  boldly  I  think.  We  must 
take  care  how  we  handle  edged  tools ;  we  must 
take  care  how  we  impugn  the  wisdom  of 
heaven,  lest  haply  we  maybe  found ''even 
to  fight  against  God."  Some  speak  con- 
temptuously of  what  they  are  pleased  to  term 
^'hahy  sprinkling ;''  and  it  is  not  impossible 
that  some  in  former  times  were  wont  to 
speak  just  in  this  way  about  '' infant  circum- 
cision,'' and  I.  am  strongly  inclined  to  think 
that  such  were  signally  punished  for  it. 
Even  Moses  himself  was  once  severely  rebuked 
for  not  paying  due  respect  to  that  ordinance 
of  divine  appointment.  Nay  more,  it  had  very 
nearly  cost  him  his  life.  The  record  touch- 
ing this  matter  is  a  very  remarkable  one, 
and  may  be  found  in  the  fourth  chapter  of 
Exodus,  from  the  24th  to  the  26th  verse, 
inclusive ;  and  the  reading  of  it  may  well  fill 
with  strange  alarm  those  who  deride  infant 
baptism,  on  the  score  of  infants  not  under- 
standing the  nature  and  design  of  that  ordi- 
nance ;  and  I  will  go  further,  and  say,  if  the 
case  be   examined,  I  strongly  suspect  that 


52       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

such  deriders,  either  in  their  own  persons  or 
families,  have  not  been  without  some  marked 
proof  of  the  divine  displeasure.  At  any 
rate  it  is  written,  "  Be  ye  not  mockers,  lest 
your  bands  be  made  strong."  The  inference 
then  against  infant  baptism,  drawn  from 
infants  not  understanding  the  nature  or 
design  of  that  ordinance,  is  not  good.  Nay, 
it  is  wicked ;  and  yet  this  is  one  of  the  infer- 
ences by  which  a  divine  and  positive  pre- 
cept may  be  set  aside.     But 

3.  It  is  further  objected,  that  in  the  scrip- 
tures, something  is  said  about  haptism  which 
cannot  apply  to  infants,  and  therefore  in- 
fants ought  not  to  he  baptized.  And  what  is 
this  ?  Why  it  is  said,  "  Believe  and  be  bap- 
tized." Infants  cannot  believe,  and  therefore 
infants  must  not  be  baptized.  And  is  it  not 
also  said  in  the  same  scriptures,  "He  that  will 
not  work,  neither  shall  he  eat."  Infants 
cannot  work,  and  therefore  infants  must  not 
eat.  Again  it  is  written,  "  Except  ye  repent, 
ye  shall  likewise  perish."  But  infants  cannot 
repent,  and  therefore  infants  must  all  like- 
wise perish.     And  again,  "  He  that  believeth 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  53 

not,  shall  be  damned."  Infants  cannot  be- 
lieve, and  therefore  infants  must  be  damned ! 
Reasonings  which  lead  to  such  conclusions 
cannot  be  sound ;  and  yet  this  is  the  kind  of 
reasoning  employed  to  set  aside  an  institu- 
tion divinely  appointed  and  never  repealed. 
The  fact  is,  when  the  command  was  given  to 
believe  and  be  baptized,  it  had  reference  to 
adults  and  not  infants;  and  mark,  to  those 
also  who  bad,  as  yet,  not  been  baptized ;  and 
this  is  the  very  thing  we  say  to  those  in  hea- 
then lands,  to  whom  the  gospel  had  never 
been  preached  before,  only  after  the  example 
set  by  Peter,  and  we  would  add  by  way  of 
encouragement,  "for  the  promise  is  unto  you, 
and  to  your  children.''  And,  just  here,  I 
would  ask.  Why  should  it  be  thought  incre- 
dible that  the  faith  of  the  parent  should,  in 
certain  cases,  avail  to  the  benefit  of  the  child  ? 
There  are  numerous  cases  on  record.  I  will 
mention  one,  the  case  of  the  Syrophoenician 
woman.  Matt.  xv.  22—28.  "And  behold, 
a  woman  of  Canaan  came  out  of  the  same 
coasts,  and  cried  unto  him,  saying,  Have 
mercy  on  me,  0  Lord,  thou  son  of  David ; 
6* 


54      A  PLAIN    AND    SCRIPTURAL 

my  daughter  is  grievously  vexed  with  a  devil. 
And  he  answered  her  not  a  word.  And  his 
disciples  came  and  besought  him,  saying, 
Send  her  away,  for  she  crieth  after  us.  But 
he  answered,  I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost 
sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.  Then  came 
she  and  worshipped  him,  saying,  Lord,  help 
me.  But  he  answered,  and  said,  It  is  not 
meet  to  take  the  children's  bread,  and  to 
cast  it  to  dogs.  And  she  said.  Truth,  Lord, 
yet  the  dogs  eat  of  the  crumbs  which  fall 
from  their  master's  table.  Then  Jesus  an- 
swered, and  said  unto  her,  0  woman !  great 
is  thy  faith ;  be  it  unto  thee,  even  as  thou 
wilt.  And  her  daughter  was  made  whole 
from  that  very  hour."  In  this  case  the 
faith  of  the  parent  availed  for  the  curing 
of  her  daughter,  and  that  too  when  the 
daughter  was  as  unconscious  of  what  her 
mother  was  doing  as  the  child;  and  even  as 
the  slumbering  child  now  is  what  time  the  be- 
lieving parent  offers  it  up  to  God  in  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism. 

Take  even  a  stronger  case,  that  of  Jairus's 
daughter  (Luke  viii.  41,  42,  49,  bQ ;  Mark 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  55 

V.  22,  23,  35,  43).  Did  the  faith  of  Jairus 
avail  nothing  towards  the  restoration  to  life 
of  his  deceased  daughter  ?  The  sorrowing 
parent  left  her  in  a  dying  state  to  seek  the 
Saviour,  but  too  late,  as  his  friends  must 
have  thought,  to  be  of  any  avail ;  because 
she  actually  expired  before  he  returned. 
They  supposed,  no  doubt,  that  although  the 
Saviour  had  the  power  to  restore  health  to 
the  living,  yet  not  life  to  the  dead.  Perhaps 
Jairus  shared  in  their  belief.  But  what  said 
the  Saviour  to  him?  "Be  not  afraid,  only 
believe."  Believe!  what  good  could  the  be- 
lief of  Jairus  do  to  his  dead  daughter  ?  It 
might  do  him  good  to  believe  in  Jesus,  but 
how  could  his  belief  have  any  effect  on  his 
dead  child  ?  Ah  reader,  if  you  are  disposed 
to  ask  such  questions,  be  assured  that  faith 
has  a  wonderful  power,  as  this  example 
shows.  It  is,  in  truth,  a  great  law  in  the 
world  of  redemption;  as  wide,  pervading, 
unerring,  all-powerful,  and  controlling,  and, 
for  ought  we  know,  infinitely  more  so  than 
the  law  of  gravitation  in  the  material  crea- 
tion.   Read  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews 


56       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

and  Matt.  xvii.  20,  xxi.  21,  and  similar 
passages,  and  then  say,  if  you  can,  what 
effects  cannot  be  accomplished  through  the 
power  of  faith.  It  was  through  the  medium 
of  Jairus's  faith  that  the  almighty  power  of 
the  Saviour  was  exerted  in  this  case,  in  re- 
storing the  dead  child  to  life  ;  and  with  good 
reason  were  her  parents  astonished  with 
great  astonishment.  Say  not  that  the 
Saviour  could  as  easily  have  exerted  his  power 
without  the  faith  of  the  parent  (Mark  ix.  23 ; 
vi.  5,  6).  It  is  not  a  question  concerning 
the  divine  power^  but  concerning  the  divine 
will  and  the  divine  appointment.  God  has 
graciously  been  pleased  to  connect  a  wonder- 
working power  with  faith,  even  when  exer- 
cised in  behalf  of  others,  as  we  learn  from 
these  and  many  other  examples.  Now  may 
we  not  reason  thus: — If  the  faith  of  the 
parent  proves  efficacious  in  such  cases,  why 
not  in  others?  and  that  especially,  as  in 
former  times,  the  Jewish  infant  was  circum- 
cised, not  on  account  of  its  own  faith,  but 
that  of  its  parent.  Yes,  I  say  the  faith  of 
ike  parent !  for  we  are  told  that  circumcision 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  57 

was  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith.  Of  whom  ?  Certainly  of  the  parent, 
not  the  child.  What  then,  shall  we  say  of 
the  inference,  that  because  infants  cannot 
believe,  therefore  they  must  not  be  baptized  ? 
This  inference  bears  the  family  mark  of  all 
the  rest.  It  is  good  for  nothing  but  to  prove 
that  the  cause  which  it  is  adduced  to  support 
is  unscriptural ;  is  not  good.*  But  the  ob- 
jector urges, 

*  The  following  appears  to  be  a  fair  argument, 
and  pertinent  to  this  question :  "  As  it  was  in  the 
days  of  Noah" — the  end  of  the  old  world,  (2  Pet.  iii. 
6,)  "so  shall  it  be  also  in  the  days  of  the  Son  of 
Man" — the  end  of  the  world  that  now  is,  (2  Pet.  iii. 
7 ;  Matt.  xiii.  41.)  Families  existed  then  as  now, 
and  doubtless  will  exist  in  all  time  to  come.  Now, 
as  the  covenant  with  Noah  and  Jiis  faith  (Heb.  xi.  7,) 
availed  to  the  saving  of  his  household,  (Gen.  vi.  8 ; 
X.  18,  and  vii.  1,)  by  means  of  the  ark,  why  may  we 
not  believe  (and  .is  it  not  tacitly  included  in  our 
Lord's  comparison  of  the  two  catastrophes?  Luke 
xvii.  26;  Matt.  xxiv.  37,)  that  in  like  manner  God's 
covenant  with  Christian  parents  and  tJieir  faith  will 
avail  (although  in  a  diflPerent  way,  Phil.  iii.  21 ; 
1  Cor.  XV.  51 ;  1  Thess.  iv.  17,)  to  the  saving  of  their 
infant  offspring ;  yea  to  the  saving  of  all  their  child- 


58       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

4.  That  baptism  cannot  have  taken  the 
place  of  circumcision^  because  it  is  more  ex- 
tensive in  its  application ;  but,  I  ask,  is 
not  this  in  exact  accordance  with  heaven's 
plan,  that  in  gospel  times  there  should  be  a 
breaking  down  of  partition  walls,  and  the 

ren,  excepting  those  who,  like  Lot's  sons-in-law,  shall 
wilfully  reject  or  neglect  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
of  salvation  ?  Or  must  we  believe,  that  while  pious 
parents  will  be  caught  up  to  glory,  their  infant  off- 
spring, though  consecrated  to  God,  and  brought  within 
the  Abrahamic  or  gospel  covenant,  (Gal.  iii.  8,)  in  the 
way  of  his  own  appointment,  (Col.  ii.  11,)  will  be 
left  beneath  the  deluge  of  the  descending  wrath? 
2  Thess.  i.  8,  9.  Did  our  gracious  Lord,  who  said 
"  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid 
them  not,"  (words  which  he  used  in  reference  to 
Jewish  children,  who,  no  doubt,  bore  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  then  in  use,)  intend  to  intimate  there 
would  be  any  such  separation?  Matt.  xxiv.  40,  41. 
If  the  faith  of  Jairus  availed  to  the  resurrection  of 
his  dead  daughter,  (Mark  v.  36—42,)  why  may  not 
the  faith  of  Christian  parents  in  that  day  bear  their 
infant  children  with  them  upward  to  glory ;  seeing 
that  they  also  are  heirs  and  children  of  the  same 
gracious  and  everlasting  covenant,  which  contains 
the  assurance  that  they  shall  not  be  cut  off  from 
their  people.    Gen.  xvii.  13,  14;  Col.  ii.  11. 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  59 

enlargement  of  church  privileges  and  subjects  ? 
Read  Isaiah  liv.  2,  3.  "  Enlarge  the  place  of 
thy  tent,  and  let  them  stretch  forth  the  cur- 
tains of  thine  habitations :  spare  not,  lengthen 
thy  cords  and  strengthen  thy  stakes ;  for  thou 
shalt  break  forth  on  the  right  hand  and  on 
the  left ;  and  thy  seed  shall  inherit  the  Gen- 
tiles." Whilst  Paul  in  his  epistle  to  the 
Ephesians  tells  us  that  Christ  has  broken 
down  the  wall  of  partition  between  Jews  and 
Crentiles,  and  made  them  both  one,  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Galatians,  he  goes  further,  and 
tells  us  that  under  the  gospel  dispensation, 
not  only  is  the  distinction  which  formerly 
existed  between  different  nations  destroyed, 
but  also  between  all  classes,  conditions  and 
sexes  ;  and  that  too  with  regard  to  this  very 
thing  of  church  membership  and  baptism.  I 
give  you  his  very  words :  Gal.  iii.  27 — 29. 
"  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ.  There  is 
neither  Jew  nor  CrreeJc,  there  is  neither  bond 
novfree,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female :  for 
ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus."  And  is  it 
not  very  remarkable  that  this  enlargement 


60       A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

of  church  privileges  in  relation  to  male  and 
female  is  made  the  subject  matter  of  a  spe- 
cial prophecy  ?  Thus,  in  Isaiah  xlix.  22,  we 
find  these  words  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God, 
Behold  I  will  lift  up  my  hand  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  set  up  my  standard  to  the  people,  and 
they  shall  bring  thy  sons  in  their  arms,  and 
thy  daughters  shall  be  carried  upon  their 
shoulders."  This  is  truly  a  remarkable  pro- 
phecy ;  and  who  is  not  struck  with  its  beau- 
tiful and  exact  fulfilment,  when,  in  our  days, 
Christian  parents  come  forward  publicly,  into 
the  sanctuary,  to  enter  into  covenant  with 
God,  bringing  "  their  sons  in  their  arms  and 
their  daughters  upon  their  shoulders  T'  Thus, 
then,  the  argument  urged  against  infant  bap- 
tism, from  the  more  extensive  application  of 
the  present  initiatory  rite,  is  positively  and 
strongly  in  its  favour ;  and  yet  this  is  one  of 
the  leading  arguments  urged  for  setting  aside 
an  institution,  as  we  have  shown,  divinely  ap- 
pointed and  never  repealed.  But,  says  the 
objector; 

5.  If  infants  are  received  as  members  of 
the  visible  church  on  earth,  why  are  they  not 


VIEW  or  BAPTISM.  61 

admitted  to  the  table  of  the  Lord  ?  I  an- 
swer, they  are  received  not  as  adults,  but 
as  infants',  and,  certainly,  a  distinction 
should  be  made  between  infant  and  adult 
membership.  The  correctness  of  this  prin- 
ciple is*  acknowledged  in  state  citizenship ; 
and  why  not  in  church  membership  ?  The 
law  of  the  land  will  not  permit  any  child, 
though  an  American  citizen,  to  approach  the 
hallot-hox  until  he  has  the  qualifications  pre- 
scribed; that  is,  until  he  is  twenty-one  years 
of  age ;  even  so  the  law  of  the  church  will 
not  permit  a  child,  though  an  infant  member, 
to  come  to  the  table  of  the  Lord  until  he 
has  the  qualifications  prescribed:  viz.  *' know- 
ledge to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  faith  to 
feed  upon  him;  repentance,  love,  and  new 
obedience."  1  Cor.  xi.  23 — 29.  And  now, 
shall  we  say  because  the  child  is  not  admitted 
to  the  ballot-box,  he  cannot  be  in  any  sense 
an  American  citizen  ?  Equally  absurd  would 
it  be  to  affirm,  that  because  a  child  is  not 
admitted  to  a  certain  ordinance  of  the  church, 
therefore  he  cannot,  in  any  sense,  be  a  mem- 
ber of  that  church.     Here,  then,  is  another 


62       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

inference  against  infant  baptism,  which  I 
think  has  been  properly  disposed  of;  or  an- 
other argument,  so  called,  to  be  laid  in  the  same 
grave  with  those  gone  before  it.  Once  more : 
6.  Another  objection  is  this:  What  ad- 
vantage is  there  in  infant  baptism  f  Here  it 
is  assumed,  that  no  benefit  can  result  from 
baptizing  infants,  and  therefore  infants  should 
not  be  baptized.  I  deny  the  premises,  and 
therefore  cannot  admit  the  conclusion.  What 
advantage  ?  Much  every  way.  And  first  to 
the  child.  Children,  when  baptized,  are 
given  up  to  God  as  was  Samuel;  and  on  that 
very  account  are  more  likely  to  receive  bless- 
ings from  above.  Besides,  being  thus  "dis- 
cipled  by  baptism,"  they  are  enrolled  as 
young  disciples  in  the  school  of  Christ,  to  be 
instructed  and  tenderly  watched  over  by  the 
church,  and  particularly  by  the  pastor,  to 
whom  the  chief  Shepherd  has  given  this 
special  charge.  Feed  my  sheep ;  feed  my 
lambs.  And  here  I  would  remark,  if  the 
sheep  are  in  the  fold,  why  should  not  the 
little  lambs  be  there  also  ?  Besides,  baptized 
children  are  placed  under  the  immediate  care 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  63 

of  those  parents  who  have  taken  the  vows 
of  God  upon  them,  touching  this  very  mat- 
ter ;  and  who,  also,  upon  that  very  account, 
are  likely  to  be  more  conscientious  in  the 
discharge  of  all  parental  duty.  It  was  after 
Abraham  had  given  up  his  family  to  God,  in 
the  religious  rite  which  then  existed,  that 
God  sa  id,  "  I  know  him,  that  he  will  command 
his  children  and  his  household  after  him,  and 
they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord."  Pa- 
rents have  an  almost  unbounded  influence 
over  their  children.  They  can  do  much  to 
form  and  stamp  the  character  of  their  child- 
ren, for  virtue  or  for  vice,  for  heaven  or  for 
hell.  And  if  parents  could  only  be  roused 
to  a  more  faithful  and  conscientious  discharge 
of  parental  duty,  I  do  believe  that  the  benefit 
thereof,  resulting  to  children,  would  be  great 
indeed.  And  what,  I  would  ask,  is  better 
calculated  to  excite  parents  to  a  proper  dis- 
charge of  parental  duty,  than  the  act  of 
giving  up  their  children  to  God  in  a  public 
and  solemn  covenant,  to  bring  them  up  in 
the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord? 
And  hence  the  remark,  so  commonly  made, 


64       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

that  "the  children  of  Presbyterian  parents 
are  better  trained  than  others."  And  is  this 
nothing?  But  even  this  is  not  all.  Baptized 
children,  I  verily  believe,  are  not  unfre- 
quently  held  in  check,  and  made  deeply 
serious,  too,  by  the  thought  that  they  were 
in  early  life  given  up  to  God  in  the  sacred 
ordinance  of  baptism;  and  that  they  have 
no  right  to  undo  what  their  parents  have 
done.  Indeed,  I  know  at  least  one  case  of 
this  kind,  and  thank  God  it  was  in  the 
bosom  of  my  own  family,  and  has  reference 
to  one  who  is  now  in  the  holy  office  of  the 
gospel  ministry. 

7.  But  suppose,  says  the  objector,  the  bap- 
tized child  is  removed  by  death  during  infancy 
— what  advantage  is  baptism  to  him  then  ? 
Much,  I  would  believe,  every  way,  although 
I  could  not  tell  or  even  surmise  how;  for  sure 
I  am,  that  God  will  put  honour  upon  his  cov- 
enant, and  show  it  to  be  no  unmeaning  thing. 
We  are  not  obliged  to  suppose  that  infants 
dying  unhaptized  before  they  are  capable  of 
actual  sin,  will  either  be  annihilated  or  pun- 
ished with  the  pains  of  hell,  in  order  to  show 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  65 

the  superior  advantage  of  the  baptized  infants 
of  believers.  No ;  for  when  God  covenanted 
with  Abraham  that  he  would  be  the  God  of 
his  infant  offspring,  and  gave  him  circumci- 
sion as  the  seal  of  his  covenant,  the  covenant 
undoubtedly  implied  some  peculiar  privilege, 
yea,  something  very  great.  He  certainly  in- 
tended that  Abraham  should  understand  that 
He  would  be  in  a  peculiar  manner  their  guar- 
dian and  benefactor — that  he  would  take 
them  under  his  especial  patronage  and  care 
of  his  providence — would  bestow  on  them  the 
influences  of  his  Spirit,  and  vouchsafe  to  them 
the  ministration  of  his  angels  if  they  lived  ; 
but  if  they  died  in  their  infant  state  without 
actual  sin,  with  the  seal  of  the  covenant  in 
their  flesh,  they  should  not  therefore  be  cut 
off  from  their  people  as  in  the  case  of  the 
uncircumcised,  but  should  certainly  be  raised 
to  a  state  of  happiness  after  death,  with  all 
the  holy  of  their  nation.  To  be  their  God, 
implied  at  least  thus  much  ;  "  For  God  is  not 
the  God  of  the  dead  but  of  the  living."  Luke 
XX.  37.  And  the  promise  to  be  their  God, 
is  as  much  as  to  promise  that  they  shall  be 
6* 


66       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTUHAL 

his  sons  (Rev.  xxi.  7) ;  and  whosoever  Is  a 
son  of  God  will  assuredly  be  declared  or 
manifested  to  be  such  by  a  glorious  resurrec- 
tion. Rom.  viii.  19 ;  Luke  xx.  36.  But, 
says  the  objector,  if  the  uncircumcised  infant 
who  died  without  actual  sin,  be  also  raised 
from  the  dead,  what  advantage  then  ?  Much, 
I  must  still  believe,  every  way ;  because  sure 
I  am  that  God  will  in  some  way,  though  I  may 
not  know  how,  put  honour  upon  his  own  cov- 
enant. And  now,  suppose  I  were  to  affirm 
that  the  circumstances  of  all  those  infants, 
who  are  solemnly  devoted  to  God  in  the  way 
of  his  appointment,  (whether  by  circumcision 
or  baptism)  may  consistently,  with  the  divine 
perfections,  be  more  advantageous  or  glorious 
in  the  future  state,  than  the  circumstances  of 
those  who  were  never  thus  devoted  to  him — 
what  could  the  objector  reply  ?  Paul  teaches 
us  that  there  are  different  degrees  of  glory 
among  those  raised  from  the  dead ;  just  as 
there  are  differences  in  the  glory  of  the  sun, 
moon,  and  the  different  stars.  Some  have 
supposed  the  advantage  may  consist  in  their 
being  aggregated  to  a  more  glorious  company 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  67 

of  tlie  redeemed,  or  that  it  may  consist  in  an 
earlier  as  well  as  in  a  more  glorious  resurrec- 
tion. Apart,  however,  from  such  suppositions, 
(which  I  merely  mention  for  the  objector  to 
answer,)  we  may  at  least  be  sure  of  thus 
much,  that  God  will  assuredly  put  honour 
on  his  own  appointments,  and  that  is  enough : 
"  What  I  do,  thou  knowest  not  now,"  said 
the  Lord  to  Peter,  "but  thou  shalt  know 
hereafter,"  and  were  we  as  ignorant  of  the 
meaning  of  this  ordinance,  as  applied  to  in- 
fants, as  Peter  was  of  the  Lord's  intent  in 
washing  the  disciples'  feet,  before  he  explained 
it,  yet  it  would  none  the  less  concern  us  to 
receive  with  faith,  and  implicitly  to  follow, 
all  the  appointments  of  the  Lord.  It  is  our 
duty  as  well  as  our  glorious  privilege  to  do 
so  ;  and  not  less  those  which  we  do  not  under- 
stand, than  those  which  we  may  suppose  we 
do  understand.  If  like  Peter  we  refuse  to 
obey,  until  we  know  the  reason  and  the 
use  of  them,  where  is  our  faith,  nay,  where 
is  our  discipleship  ?     John  xiii.  8. 

But  again,  what  advantage  ?    much  every 
way.     Not  to  children  only,  but  to  parents 


68       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL: 

also.  The  very  act  of  presenting  their  child- 
ren to  God  in  a  public  and  solemn  manner, 
the  very  act  of  entering  into  covenant  en- 
gagements to  bring  up  their  children  in  the 
nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  in  the 
very  nature  of  the  case,  must  have  a  power- 
ful and  happy  influence  upon  the  hearts  of 
parents,  and  upon  their  lives  also.  Yes,  I 
have  seen  the  pious  parent  presenting  his 
children  to  God  in  baptism.  I  saw  deep  de- 
votion marked  in  his  countenance ;  he  was 
solemn  ;  the  tear  was  in  his  eye.  I  saw  it 
steal  silently  down  his  cheek ;  he  was  think- 
ing about  serious  matters ;  he  was  covenant- 
ing with  his  God ;  he  was  pleading  for  his 
children;  he  was  doing  a  work  for  great 
eternity.  And  how  natural  for  a  parent, 
after  a  transaction  of  this  kind,  to  retire  and 
think  thus  with  himself — I  have  gone  into 
the  presence  of  my  Maker  upon  a  solemn 
errand.  I  have  given  up  my  children  to  God 
in  a  holy  ordinance ;  my  vows  are  recorded 
on  earth,  they  are  registered  in  heaven.  0 
for  grace  to  fulfil  my  vows,  and  keep  all  my 


VIEW    OF    BAPTISM.  69 

engagements.*  And  if  a  child  thus  conse- 
crated to  God,  should  be  laid  upon  a  bed  of 
death,  how  it  will  strengthen  the  faith  of  the 
parent  in  offering  up  his  last  prayer  for  this 

*  In  the  language  of  another,  the  sentiments  of  a 
pious  parent  may  be  expressed  thus: 

"Oh  God  of  grace  and  of  glory,  our  good  and  gra- 
cious Father,  I  acknowledge,  with  the  greatest  thank- 
fulness and  joy,  thine  absolute  right  in  me,  and  in 
all  that  is  mine,  for  all  I  have  is  thy  gracious  gift. 
This  child  thou  hast  given  me,  and  I  receive  it  as 
from  thy  hand.  It  is  thine,  for  thou  hast  made  it, 
and  redeemed  it  by  the  blood  of  thine  only  begotten 
Son.  To  thee,  therefore,  I  now  solemnly  devote  and 
give  it  up,  to  be  guarded  by  thy  Providence,  minis- 
tered to  by  thy  angels,  taught,  influenced,  and 
strengthened  by  thy  Spirit,  guided  safely  through 
the  many  dangers  and  evils  of  this  present  world, 
and  to  be  preserved  unto  thy  everlasting  kingdom. 

"  For  ever  blessed  be  thy  name,  that  as  by  one  man^s 
offence  judgment  came  upon  all  to  condemnation  and 
death  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free 
gift  comes  upon  all  to  justification  of  life  ; — that  as 
the  fatal  effects  of  the  first  Adam's  sin  extend  to  our 
infant  offspring,  subjecting  them  to  pain,  and  misery, 
and  death ;  so  the  salutary  effects  of  the  second 
Adam's  righteousness  extend  also  to  these — our  be- 
loved offspring. 


70      A  PLAIN    AND    SCRIPTURAL 

dying  child  !  And  how  it  will  comfort  his 
heart  to  think  that  he  had  done  for  his  child 
what  he  could  !  Alas !  that  any  'parent 
should  lightly  esteem  an  institution  so  im- 

*'  I  render  thee  unfeigned  thanks,  that  the  "blessings 
of  redemption  and  of  the  covenant  of  grace  reach 
also  to  them — that  thou  didst  command  that  little 
children  should  be  brought  into  thy  presence  to  re- 
ceive thy  blessing,  and  that  thou  didst  declare  such 
to  belong  to  thy  family  and  thy  kingdom.  I  thank 
thee  that  thou  hast  appointed  the  baptismal  water 
as  a  memorial  of  thy  favour  and  gracious  acceptance 
of  them,  and  of  thy  readiness  to  pour  thy  Spirit  on 
our  seed  and  thy  blessing  on  our  offspring.  Lord, 
I  believe ;  help  thou  my  unbelief.  I  most  thank- 
fully embrace  this  liberty  which  thou  hast  given  me. 
I  here  bring  my  helpless  infant,  commending  it  to 
thee  and  the  power  of  thy  grace  :  Oh  receive  it  into 
the  number  of  thy  chosen  ones,  and  into  the  arms 
of  thy  love.  Pour  down  thy  blessings  upon  it. 
Write  its  name  in  the  book  of  life.  Sanctify  it  from 
this  dawning  of  its  being,  and  make  it  a  chosen,  a 
consecrated  vessel  fitted  for  thy  service.  May  thy 
Spirit  henceforth  and  for  ever  continually  dwell  in  it 
with  his  life-giving  power,  rectifying  the  disorders 
of  its  nature,  rooting  out  the  seeds  of  vanity  and  folly, 
which  may  spring  up  in  its  heart — enlightening  its 
understanding,  strengthening  its  moral  powers,  puri- 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  71 

portant,  and  the  associations  of  which  are  so 
sacred  and  tender.  And  alas,  too,  that  any 
minister  especially  should  divest  this  ordi- 
nance of  its  proper  interest  and  solemnity, 
by  administering  it  in  a  cold  and  formal  man- 
ner, as  if  it  were  only  an  unmeaning  ceremony. 
When  children  are  presented  to  God,  the 
scene,  to  one  whose  heart  is  rightly  affected, 
is  one  of  deep  and  thrilling  interest.  It  is 
calculated   to   remind   us   of  the  words   of 

fying  and  controlling  its  passions  and  appetites,  and 
forming  it  into  a  living  temple  of  God. 

"  Guard  and  preserve,  if  it  please  thee,  the  life  thou 
hast  thus  graciously  bestowed.  Conduct  it  un- 
harmed through  the  dangers  of  childhood  and  youth. 
Spare  it  to  be  a  blessing  to  its  friends,  and  a  burn- 
ing and  shining  light  in  this  dark  and  corrupted 
world.  As  it  grows  in  years,  may  it  also  continu- 
ally grow  in  grace,  in  wisdom,  in  virtue,  and  in 
favour  with  God  and  men.  Grant  also  that  I  may 
ever  walk  before  it  with  a  wise  and  perfect  heart,  to 
bring  it  up  in  the  fear  and  in  the  nurture  of  the 
Lord,  and  may  I  so  faithfully  discharge  all  my  duties 
towards  it,  that  I  may  at  last  meet  it  with  joy  at  thy 
appearing  and  kingdom,  and  may  then  say  with 
triumph  and  joy,  '  Behold  me  and  this  child  which 
thou  hast  given  me.' '' 


72      A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

Moses,  "  Ye  stand  this  day  all  of  you  before 
the  Lord  your  God,  your  captains,  your 
elders,  your  officers,  with  all  the  men  of 
Israel,  and  your  little  ones,  that  thou  shouldst 
enter  into  covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God, 
that  he  may  establish  thee  to-day  for  a  peo- 
ple unto  himself."  It  is  calculated  also  to 
remind  us  of  the  fact  recorded  in  the  tenth 
chapter  of  Matthew,  in  these  words:  "And 
they  brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he 
should  touch  them,  and  he  took  them  up  in 
his  arms  and  blessed  them."  And  how  in- 
teresting is  the  thought,  that  in  presenting 
our  children  to  God  in  baptism,  we  are  show- 
ing a  proper  regard  to  a  time-honoured  as 
well  as  a  divine  institution;  that  we  are  imi- 
tating those  who  have  gone  before ;  and  are 
one  in  feeling  and  sentiment  with  thousands, 
and  tens  of  thousand  of  the  excellent  of  the 
earth  of  the  present  day. 

**  Thus  Lydia  sanctified  her  house, 
When  she  received  the  word ; 
Thus  the  believing  jailor  gave 
His  household  to  the  Lord ; 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  73 

Thus  later  saints,  eternal  King, 

Thine  ancient  truths  embrace, 
To  thee  their  infant  offspring  bring 

And  humbly  claim  thy  grace." 

0,  if  the  occasion  were  only  properly  im- 
proved; if  ministers  would  only,  at  such  a 
time,  speak  feelingly  and  strongly,  as  they 
should,  on  the  subject  of  parental  responsi- 
bility ;  I  do  believe  that  the  influence  upon 
parents,  and  all  parties  concerned,  would  be 
most  happy.  Nay,  I  will  go  further  and  say, 
no  ordinance  would  be  more  impressive,  and 
even  none  more  earnestly  desired,  for  the 
relation  of  parent  and  child  is  very  tender. 
I  well  recollect,  once  in  particular,  when 
preaching  on  this  subject  of  infant  baptism, 
how  my  own  feelings  were  wrought  upon. 
The  idea  that  my  parents  had  publicly  and 
solemnly  given  me  up  to  God;  and  then, 
shortly  after,  had  taken  their  flight  for  glory ; 
this  idea,  suddenly  flashing  upon  my  mind, 
came  over  me  with  great  sweetness  and 
power.  My  heart  was  melted!  my  soul 
was  subdued !  I  wept,  and  many  of  my 
hearers  wept  with  me;  for  they  too,  as 
T 


74  A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

children  of  the  covenant,  had  also,  by  their 
parents,  been  given  up  to  God  in  infancy,  in 
the  holy  ordinance  of  baptism.  Even  a 
brave  and  veteran  soldier  who  was  present, 
and  who  had  won  laurels  on  the  battle  field, 
eould  not  himself  refrain  from  weeping  like 
a  child ;  and  shall  such  associations  have  no 
place  in  the  church  of  Christ?  God  has 
very  closely  linked  parents  and  children 
together,  in  the  kingdom  'of  nature,  and 
why  should  he  not  in  the  kingdom  of  grace? 
In  Christ  alone  can  parents  hope  to  have 
any  permanent  happy  union  with  their  child- 
ren. The  doctrine  of  infant  membership  is  an 
exceedingly  precious  one ;  and  the  privilege 
of  having  our  children  embraced  with  us,  in 
the  bonds  of  the  everlasting  covenant  in 
Christ,  is  of  inestimable  value  !  And  I  would 
again  say,  if  the  sheep  are  in  the  fold,  why 
should  not  the  little  lambs  be  there  also? 
And  now,  this  ordinance  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, hallowed  by  long  usage,  which  existed 
in  the  purest  and  holiest  days  of  the  church, 
which  is  made  sacred  by  its  associations  with 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  parental  feel- 


VIEW   or   BAPTISM.  75 

ing,*  and  which  moreover  is  so  admirably 
calculated  to  have  a  powerful  and  happy 
influence  upon  domestic  comfort  and  family 
religion — this  precious  privilege  has,  in  these 
later  times,  been  stigmatized  as  "  an  evil^'' 
and  "  a  curse ;"  and  is  to  be  abolished  by 
no  divine  precept,  but  by  mere  human 
inference,  and  that  inference,  as  we  have 
clearly  shown,  not  good ;  and  abolished,  too, 
by  those  who  are  wont  to  insist  upon  it,  that 
in  the  matter  of  baptism  no  inference  will 
answer — there  must  be  a  positive  precept. 
How  strange,  how  passing  strange  is  it,  that 
those  who  insist  upon  a  positive  precept, 
when  it  is  not  at  all  needed,  should,  in  exclu- 
ding infants,  be  willing  themselves  to  act 
without  such  a  precept,  when  it  is  absolutely 
indispensable.  This  is  truly  a  serious  matter ; 
and  to  say  nothing  of  the  fearful  responsi- 
bility involved,  it  may,  I  think,  well  be  num- 
bered with  the  inconsistencies  of  human  nature. 

*  Gal.  iii.  throughout,  where  the  whole  scope  of 
the  apostle's  argument  is  to  prove  that  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  is  still  in  being  and  force,  and  that 
his  blessing  has  come  on  all  believers. 


76       A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

Having  thus  given,  what  I  verily  believe 
to  be  a  plain  and  scriptural  view  of  the  pro- 
per subjects  of  baptism,  I  shall  now  proceed 
to  consider : 

II.  The  proper  mode.  But,  first,  I  would 
make  two  preliminary  remarks. 

1.  The  Christian  religion,  directing  men 
to  one  great  object — to  worship  God  in  spirit 
and  in  truth,  seems  to  regard  matters  of 
mere  mode  and  form,  as  comparatively  of  small 
importance;  hence  no  particular  mode  has 
been  prescribed  for  private,  social,  or  public 
worship ;  nor  any  particular  posture  in  sing- 
ing, praying,  or  taking  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  supper.  The  Lord's  supper,  equally 
with  baptism,  is  a  holy  sacrament ;  and  yet 
what  little  stress  is  laid  upon  all  the  modes 
and  forms  connected  with  this  sacrament ! 
Some  persons,  for  example,  take  it  kneeling, 
some  sitting,  and  some  standing;  whilst  the 
primitive  disciples  took  it  neither  kneeling, 
sitting,  nor  standing,  but  reclining.  Some 
make  use  of  leavened,  and  some  of  unleavened 
bread ;  and  whilst  some  take  it  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  and  some  on  the  second, 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  77 

some  in  the  morning,  and  some  in  the  after- 
noon, it  is  certain  that  the  apostles  at  its 
original  institution  took  it  neither  on  the 
first  nor  on  the  second  day,  but  on  the  fifth; 
and  neither  in  the  morning  nor  in  the  after- 
noon, but  at  night.  And  whereas  it  is 
called  a  supper^  and  in  early  times  the  sup- 
per was  the  principal  meal,  yet  now  any 
portion  of  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine, 
however  small,  is  deemed  sufficient.  And 
let  it  be  remembered,  that  this  latitude  in 
relation  to  the  modes  and  forms  of  one  sacra- 
ment, is  freely  allowed,  even  by  those  who, 
in  relation  to  the  other  sacrament,  will  allow 
of  no  latitude  whatever. 

2.  As  the  Christian  religion  was  designed 
to  embrace  the  whole  world,  it  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  baptism  as  well  as  the  Lord's 
supper  would  be  adapted  to  the  physical  condi- 
tion and  circumstances  of  all  mankind.  If  our 
views  be  correct,  this  is  the  case ;  but  if  bap- 
tism means  immersion,  and  immersion  only, 
then  this  adaptedness  does  not  exist ;  for 
immersion  is  neither  suited  to  the  frozen  re- 
gions of  the  polar  circle,  nor  to  the  burning 
7* 


78       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

sands  of  the  barren  desert ;  neither  to  him 
who  is  chained  down  in  a  dungeon,  nor  to 
him  who  is  confined  to  a  bed  by  chronic  dis- 
ease. Why  this  want  of  adaptedness  in  the 
sacrament  of  baptism  ?  Are  there  two  Gods  ? 
and  does  the  God  of  grace  require  what  the 
God  of  providence  forbids  ?  Whence  this  ap- 
parent conflict  ?  and  why  is  that  beautiful  an- 
alogy, seen  to  reign  in  all  the  departments  of 
the  empire  of  God,  broken  only  here  ?  Having 
made  these  preliminary  remarks,  which  I 
deem  of  much  importance,  I  will  now  state 
distinctly  the  ground  which  I  take.  It  is 
this: 

Water  baptism  being  an  emblem  of  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  significant  of 
spiritual  cleansing  or  purification,  may  proper- 
ly be  administered  in  various  ways ;  the  Scrip- 
tures in  no  place,  either  by  precept,  example, 
or  allusion,  limiting  it  to  any  one  particular 
mode  ;  or  in  other  words,  immersion  is  not  the 
only  mode,  nor  is  it  the  most  scriptural. 

The  Greek  word  Baptism  has  a  variety  of 
meanings.  If  we  deny  this,  we  must  wage 
war  with  many  Cf-reek  lexicons,  for  they  cer- 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  79 

tainlj  give  more  meanings  than  one  ;  such  as 
to  dye,  to  stain,  to  dip,  to  wash,  to  purify, 
and  to  immerse.  Even  Dr.  Carson,  who 
affirms  that  the  word  rendered  baptism  al- 
ways means  to  clip^  admits  that  he  has  all 
the  lexicographers  and  commentators  against 
him.  Here  I  would  remark,  that  if  Dr. 
Carson  is  right  in  affirming  that  the  word 
means  to  dip,  and  onli/  to  dip,  and  those  also 
are  right  who  say  it  means  to  immerse  and 
immerse  only,  does  not  this  prove  that  the 
word  has  more  meanings  than  one  ?  for, 
whilst  to  dip  conveys  the  idea  of  putting  un- 
der and  taking  out,  to  immerse  conveys  the 
idea  simply  of  "  putting  under,  without  any 
reference  whatever  to  taking  out ;"  (as  Pha- 
raoh and  his  horsemen  may  truly  be  said  to 
have  been  immersed,  for  they  sank  as  lead  in 
the  deep  waters,  and  rose  no  more.)  Those, 
therefore,  who  insist  upon  it,  that  the  word 
baptism  means  immersion,  and  immersion 
only,   are   peculiarly   unfortunate,*   because 

*  The  Baptist  Missionaries  at  Calcutta,  strange  as 
it  may  seem,  have  pushed  their  reform  of  the  ancient 
Armenian  version  of  the  New  Testament  to  this  es- 


80       A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

thej  condemn  their  champion,  who  says  that 
baptism  means  to  di'p — that  is,  "  to  put  under, 
and  take  out  again' — and  not  to  immerse 
and  nothing  more — that  is,  to  put  under j  and 

tent,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  extract  of  a  let- 
ter to  the  author  from  a  returned  Missionary : 

"  The  New  Testament  was  translated  into  the  noble 
tongue  of  the  Armenians  early  in  the  fifth  century. 
The  version  is  not  perfect,  but  is  most  admirable,  and 
ranks  next  to  the  Syriac  in  point  of  value  and  au- 
thority. This  ancient  Armenian  version  we  trans- 
lated, at  Smyrna,  into  the  modern  dialect,  as  it  is 
spoken  in  Asia  Minor.  The  Baptist  Missionaries  at 
Calcutta  (under  the  patronage  of  the  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society)  have  also  published  a  trans- 
lation of  it  into  the  modern  dialect  as  spoken  by  the 
Armenians  in  India  and  Persia.  The  difference  be- 
tween these  two  dialects  is  not  very  material. 

**  At  your  request  I  would  state  a  fact  respecting 
this  Baptist  New  Testament  which  will  speak  for 
itself.  In  the  Armenian  language,  both  in  the  an- 
cient and  modern  form  of  it,  to  baptize  is  muggurdel. 
This  signifies  to  baptize,  to  dip,  to  wash,  to  immerse. 
This  is  the  word  which,  from  the  time  of  the  nation's 
conversion  to  Christianity,  has  always  been  employed. 
It  needs  no  translation,  for  the  most  ignorant  Arme- 
niaiv- knows  that  it  means  to  baptize;  and  they  all 
understand  too  that  baptism  is  to  be  by  immersion. 
Would  you  not  suppose  that,  in  these  circumstances, 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  81 

not  take  out  again.  Moreover,  they  are  in- 
consistent with  themselves  ;  for  they  immerse 
and  take  out  again^  whilst  they  hold  to  im- 
mersion and  immersion  only.     Again,  if  we 

our  Baptist  brethren  would  have  been  content  to  let 
alone  the  old  word  so  long  set  apart  to  this  idea? 
No  !  this  did  not  suit  them.  Accordingly  they  cast 
about  for  some  word  of  a  still  more  Baptist  complex- 
ion, and  finding  one  which  they  thought  suitable, 
they  have  introduced  it,  sometimes  alone  and  some- 
times with  the  old  word  along  side  of  it,  in  paren- 
thesis, to  explain  its  meaning.  And  what  is  this 
term  which  has  displaced  the  old  and  well-understood 
muggurdel  ?  Your  readers  will  be  as  much  amused 
as  you  were,  to  learn  that  it  is  no  other  than  a  word 
which,  in  its  every-day  application,  means  io  drown  ! 
The  word  is  ungughmel.  Having  been  for  twelve 
years  resident  among  the  Armenians,  and  having 
learned  their  language  (both  ancient  and  modern)  so 
as  to  translate  into  it  and  preach  in  it,  I  feel  pre- 
pared to  say  that  the  ordinary  acceptation  of  this 
word  is  no  other  than  the  above.  If  a  ship  founders 
and  goes  to  the  bottom,  the  Armenians  would  say 
that  she  unguglimetsar ;  and  when  they  refer  to  the 
Egyptians,  as  drowned  in  the  Red  Sea,  they  say,  the 
Egyptians  unguglimetsan. 

"  Such  is  the  extreme  to  which  their  zeal  has  led 
our  brethren  of  the  American  and  Foreign  Bible  So- 


82      A   PLAIN   AND    SCRIPTURAL 

say  that  the  Greek  word  rendered  baptism 
means  immersion  only,  then  we  must  wage  war 
with  the  Greek  classics,  and  ^nani/  other  Gf-reeh 
writers,  for  in  Homer  we  read  of  "a  lake 
baptized  with  the  blood  of  a  frog;"  and  of 
"  a  rock  baptized  with  the  blood  of  a  stag." 
Now  whilst  both  the  lake  and  the  rock  might 
have  been  sprinkled,  or  stained,  with  this 
blood,  it  is  certain,  that  by  it  neither  could 
have  been  immersed.  In  the  Septuagint, 
Nebuchadnezzar  is  said  to  have  been  baptized* 

ciety.  How  ridiculous  the  sound  of  all  this  must  be 
in  the  ear  of  the  Armenians !  IIow  must  it  tend  to 
injure  the  cause  of  our  common  Protestantism  among 
that  already  too  superstitious  people!  Think  how  it 
would  sound,  if  the  new  Baptist  version  in  English 
were  to  read  "  Go,  teach  all  nations,  drowning  them 
&c." — or  "  He  that  belioveth  and  is  droioned  shall  he 
saved!"  Would  it  help  the  matter  that  the  word 
baptized  should  be  put  in  a  parenthesis,  along  side  of 
droioned,  in  the  way  of  a  commentary  upon  the  impi- 
ous mistranslation  ? — and  why  then  should  this  sec- 
tarianism make  free  with  God's  holy  word  in  a  for- 
eign tongue,  after  a  fashion  which  it  would  be  ashamed 
and  afraid  to  follow  in  our  own  language  ? 

I  am  yours  very  truly." 

*  E^a<prj,  a  word  of  the  same  root.     See  Morel.  Lex. 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  b6 

with  the  dews  of  Heaven.  Now  he  may 
have  been  sprinkled,  or  made  wet  with  the 
dews  of  heaven,  but  assuredly  not  immersed  ; 
for  in  immersion,  the  subject  is  applied 
to  the  element,  and  not  the  element  to 
the  subject.  In  the  case  of  Nebuchadnez- 
zar, the  matter  was  entirely  reversed,  for 
the  element  was  applied  to  the  subject,  and 
not  the  subject  to  the  element ;  and  yet, 
although  he  was  only  sprinkled  or  made  wet, 
i^a^iq  with  the  dew,  he  was  said  to  have  been 
baptized.  In  Ecclesiasticus  xxxi.  25,  speak- 
ing of  one  who  had  been  ceremonially  puri- 
fied, after  having  touched  a  dead  body,  we 
have  these  words,  /SaTtrt^o^ue^oj  arto  vfxpou,  which 
may  be  rendered,  was  purified  from  the  dead, 
but  certainly  not  immersed.  And,  however 
strange  it -may  be,  Taylor,  the  editor  of 
Calmet's  Dictionary,  quotes  some  eighty  ex^ 
amples,  in  which  the  word  in  question  im- 
plies less  than  immersion ;  and  in  most  of 
them  means  no  more  than  sprinkling,  moist- 
ening, pouring,  or  staining."^     How   certain 

*  See   Peter's    **  Sprinkling    the  only   mode    of 
baptism." 


84       A   PLAIN   AND    SCBIPTURAL 

it  is  then  that  the  word  rendered  baptism 
has  more  meanings  than  one  !  But  again,  if 
we  say  that  baptism  means  immersion,  and 
immersion  only,  we  must  wage  war  with  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  This  is  a  heavy  charge, 
and  I  would  not  dare  to  make  it,  if  the  evidence 
were  not  clear  as  a  sun-beam.  And  this  is 
the  strong  point ;  for  if  all  lexicons,  and  all 
the  classics,  and  all  uninspired  writers  were 
against  us,  it  should  not  and  would  not  have 
any  influence  with  me  in  fixing  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  if  the  sacred  Scriptures  should 
show  that  it  is  used  in  another  sense.  And 
to  prove  that  this  is  the  fact,  I  adduce  the 
following  examples.  1.  In  Heb.  ix.  10, 
Paul  uses  this  phraseology,  Sta^potj  ^an-nGnoi^, 
divers  baptisms.  Now,  if  there  was  only  one 
mode  of  baptism,  why  does  the  apostle  use  the 
plural  number  baptisms,  arid  connect  with  it 
the  word  divers,  which  denotes  variety  ? 
Should  I  take  you  into  a  room  promising  to 
show  you  divers  beautiful  objects,  and  then 
show  you  only  one,  what  would  you  think  of  my 
promise  ?  Or  should  I  invite  you  into  an  or- 
chard, and  tell  you  that  I  would  treat  you  to 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  85 

divers  fruits,  and  I  should  place  before  you 
only  one  kind  of  fruit,  would  you  not  be  much 
disappointed  ?  The  very  phrase  then  divers 
baptisms  evidently  bespeaks  more  kinds  than 
one.  But  to  what  does  the  apostle  allude, 
when  he  uses  the  phrase  "  divers  baptisms?" 
This  may  easily  be  ascertained  by  comparing 
the  whole  verse  with  a  parallel  passage,  found 
in  Mark  vii.  4.  Paul  says,  "  Which  stood  only 
in  meats,  and  drinks,  and  divers  washings 
(Gr.  baptisms),  and  carnal  ordinances,  im- 
posed on  them  until  the  time  of  reformation." 
The  language  of  Mark  is  this,  "  And  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they 
wash,  (or  baptize,)  they  eat  not.  And  many 
other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  re- 
ceived to  hold,  as  the  washing  (Gr.  baptism) 
of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of 
tables."  Here  it  appears  that  the  reference 
unquestionably  is  to  the  ablutions,  which  were 
commonly  practised  amongst  the  Jews  ;  and 
for  which  water-pots  filled  with  water  were 
always  provided,  and  near  the  door.  Hence 
this  testimony  touching  the  marriage  in  Cana 
of  Galilee ;  "  there  were  set  there  six  water- 
8 


86        A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL' 

pots  of  stone,  after  the  manner  of  the  puri- 
fying of  the  Jews,  containing  two  or  three' 
firkins  apiece."  Now  the  Jews,  when  they 
returned  from  the  market,  invariably  per- 
formed an  act  of  purification  at  the  water- 
pots.  This,  which  is  expressly  called  bap- 
tism^ could  not,  I  think,  have  been  by  ^V?^- 
mersion.  And  whilst  the  cups,  and  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels,  may  possibly  have  been  im- 
mersed, it  is  pretty  certain  that  the  tables 
(or  couches)  of  which  Mark  speaks  were  not, 
for  we  are  informed  that  they  were  very  cum- 
brous articles  of  furniture,  being  usually 
about  twenty  feet  long,  four  feet  wide,  and 
four  feet  high ;  too  large,  I  should  suppose, 
to  be  conveniently  immersed,  especially  in 
the  water-pots  just  mentioned.  Here,  then, 
we  find  that  certain  things  are  in  Scripture, 
said  to  have  been  baptized,  which  could  not 
have  been  immersed. 

The  second  Scripture  example  which  I 
shall  advance  to  prove  that  the  word  to 
baptize  cannot,  in  every  case,  mean  im- 
mersion, is  this,  Levit.  xiv.  4  :  "  Then  shall 
the  priest  command  to  take  for  him  that 
is    to    be    cleansed    two    birds,    alive    and 


VIEWOFBAPTISM.  87 

clean,  and  cedar  wood,  and  scarlet,  and  hys- 
sop ;  and  the  priest  shall  command  that  one 
of  the  Hrds  be  killed  in  an  earthen  vessel, 
over  running  water.  As  for  the  living  bird, 
he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and 
the  scarlet-,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  dip  (or 
hajJtize)  them  and  the  living  bird  in  the  blood 
of  the  bird  that  was  Jcilled."  Now  I  ask, 
could  the  bird  killed  have  had  blood  enough 
to  make  a  pool  sufficiently  large  and  deep 
for  hnmersing  all  over  the  living  bird,  to- 
gether with  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet, 
and  the  hyssop  ?  And  yet  by  the  command 
of  heaven,  all  these  must  be  dipped  or  bap- 
tized in  the  blood  of  the  single  bird  killed. 
Certainly  then,  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
an  object  may  be  baptized,  and  yet  not  im- 
mersed. 

Take  another  example,  John  xiii.  26, 
*'  He  it  is,  to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop,  when 
I  have  dipped  or  baptized  it.  And  when  he 
had  dipped  the  sop,  {^fx^a^as  to  ^ioy.iov)  he  gave 
it  to  Judas  Iscariot."  And  again.  Matt, 
xxvi.  23,  "He  that  dippeth  (^  sy-^a^ai)  his  hand 
with  me  in  the  dish."  Now  certainly  there 
was  no  immersion  here,  for  there  was  nothing 


88       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

like  a  liquid  used.  The  lamb  was  to  be 
roasted,  and  this  was  to  be  eaten  with  bitter 
herbs  made  into  a  kind  of  paste,  and  a  small 
piece  of  unleavened  bread  called  a  sop  was 
smeared  with  it.  The  bringing  of  this  piece  of 
unleavened  bread  in  contact  with  the  roasted 
lamb,  and  the  bitter  herbs  thus  made  into  a 
kind  of  paste,  is  called  dipping,  or  baptizing 
the  sop.  I  repeat  it,  surely  there  is  no  im- 
mersion here. 

But  3.  we  adduce  those  passages  of 
Scripture  which  denominate  the  influences 
of  the  Spirit  haptisvi,  when  there  is  no- 
thing like  immersion  spoken  of.  Thus  it 
is  written:  "I  will  be  as  the  dew  to  Is- 
rael;" and  again — "I  will  pour  my  Spirit 
upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine 
offspring;"  and  again — "He  shall  come 
down  as  the  rain  upon  the  mown  grass,  and 
as  showers  that  water  the  earth;"  and  again 
— "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
ye  shall  be  clean."  These,  and  many  similar 
passages  of  Scripture,  unquestionably  refer 
to  the  influences  of  the  divine  Spirit  which 
should  be  vouchsafed  to  the  church  in  gospel 
times ;  and  are  not   these  expressly  denomi- 


VIEW   OF  BAPTISM.  89 

nated  baptism  ?  What  said  the  blessed  Sa- 
viour in  his  last  interview  with  his  disciples. 
*'  John  indeed  baptized  with  water,  but  ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not 
many  days  hence."  And  when  did  this  bap- 
tism take  place  ?  On  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
Then  it  was  that  the  Spirit  descended^  and  as 
an  emblem  of  divine  influences,  cloven  tongues 
like  as  of  fire  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And 
what  said  Peter  ?  "  This  is  that  which  was 
spoken  by  Joel  the  prophet,  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  says  God, 
I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh." 
This  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is  evidently 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  the  Sa- 
viour promised ;  and  if  he  denominates  this 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  baptism,  who  are 
we,  that  we  should  contend  against  such  au- 
thority ?  Again,  John  the  Baptist  says,  '^  I 
baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  that  comes 
after  me  is  mightier  than  I.  He  shall  bap- 
tize you  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and  in  what 
way  shall  he  do  this  ?  The  prophet  Isaiah  tells 
us  distinctly,  "  He  shall  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions." Isa.  lii.  15.    Thus,  that  baptism  which 


90       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

comes  from  Christ,  and  the  Holj  Spirit  which 
he  promised  to  send,  is  represented  by  pour- 
ing and  sprinkling^  but  in  no  solitary  case 
by  immersion.  So  far  then  from  the  Scrip- 
ture limiting  baptism  to  immersion,  it  may 
be  seriously  questioned  whether  it  gives  any 
countenance  to  that  mode  at  all.  And  this 
more  particularly  as  it  inverts  the  order  of 
heaven's  plan,  applying  the  subject  to  the 
element,  when,  if  the  manner  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  be  respected,  the  element 
is  to  be  applied  to  the  subject,  and  not  the 
subject  to  the  element.  The  word  baptism, 
then,  having  most  manifestly  more  meanings 
than  one,  of  course  no  simple  precept  to  bap- 
tize can  of  itself  designate  any  one  mode. 
But  it  may  be  said,  if  no  command  can  re- 
strict baptism  to  immersion,  this  is  done  by 
certain  scriptural  examples  and  allusions. 
We  will  now  notice  some  of  the  most  noted. 

1.  The  case  of  John  baptizing  in  Jordan, 
Any  Greek  scholar  knows  that  the  preposi- 
tion here  rendered  m,  viz.  ft?,  is  frequently 
rendered  at,  to,  hy,  upon,  or  nexir  to.  Take 
one  example  out  of  at  least  a  hundred  found 


VIEW   OF  BAPTISM.  91 

in  the  New  Testament.  "There  came  a 
man  named  Jairus  and  fell  «?  Jesus's  feet." 
Certainly,  in  this  place  it  should  be  ren- 
dered at^  and  not  in.  But  we  can  adduce 
an  instance  where  this  very  word  e^j  is  ex- 
pressly declared  not  to  toean  in,  but  to.  See 
John  XX.  4,  5.  "  So  they  ran  both  together ; 
and  the  other  disciple  did  outrun  Peter,  and 
came  first  "?,  to,  the  sepulchre ;"  not  in,  nor 
into,  for  in  the  very  next  verse  it  is  added : 
"Yet  went  he  not  in."  Now,  if  in  numerous 
cases  the  word  is  properly  rendered  to,  at, 
hy,  on,  and  near  to;  and  in  one  case,  at 
least,  we  are  expressly  told  that  it  does  not 
mean  in,  or  into;  how  can  a  preposition, 
which  has  so  many  meanings,  fix  the  mean- 
ing of  a  word  which  has  also,  as  we  have 
shown,  a  variety  of  meanings.  The  fact  is, 
when  the  word  ft 5  clearly  means  in,  or  into, 
it  is  almost  invariably  reduplicated  or 
doubled.  In  the  case  before  us  it  is  not. 
John,  I  am  strongly  inclined  to  think,  did 
not  immerse  a  single  individual;  but  stand- 
ing on  the  banks  of  Jordan,  near  the  water's 
edge,  baptized  his  disciples  by  simnkling^ 


92      A  PLAIN    AND    SCRIPTURAL 

in  accordance  with  the  mode  of  purification 
prescribed  in  Leviticus;  and  with  which,  of 
course,  he  must  have  been  very  familiar.  It 
seems,  indeed,  almost  certain  that  he  did  not 
immerse,  for  we  are  told  that  "all  Jerusa- 
lem, and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round 
about  Jordan,  came  to  John,  and  were  baptized 
of  him  in  (or  at)  Jordan,  confessing  their 
sins."  Now,  if  only  one  tenth  part  of  the 
population  which,  according  to  Josephus, 
then  existed  in  those  regions,  were  baptized 
by  immersion,  and  if  we  allow  one  minute 
for  each  to  confess  his  sins,  and  be  immersed, 
John  must  have  remained  in  the  water  six 
hours  every  day,  for  three  years.  The  more 
I  think  upon  the  subject,  the  more  convinced 
I  am  that  John,  according  to  Old  Testa- 
ment usages,  baptized  by  sprinkling,  and  not 
by  immersion.  But  suppose  that  John  did 
immerse,  his  baptism  was  not  the  Christian 
baptism;  for  that  was  not  as  yet  instituted; 
and  hence  those  who  had  been  baptized  by 
John  were  baptized  over  again.*  Acts  xix. 

*  The  following  note,  which  is  abridged  from- 
another  work,  may  cast  some  light  on  this  point. 
The  purpose  of  John's  baptism  was  peculiar.    It 


VIEW  or  BAPTISM.  93 

2.  The  case  of  John's  baptizing  in  Enon^ 
because  there  luas  mucli  ivater  there.  Enon 
was  not  a  river,  it  was  only  a  town,  or  place 
where  there   were,  yto-hxa  iiSaira,   not   ''much 

continued  only  during  John's  ministry,  and  it  was 
restricted  to  the  Jews.  What  form  of  words  he  used 
we  know  not.  We  can  only  conjecture  them  from 
Acts  xix.  4.  His  baptism  was  superseded  by  the 
commission  Christ  gave  to  his  disciples  after  his  re- 
surrection, if  not  before.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  The  rite 
appears  to  have  been  appointed  for  the  whole  nation 
without  discrimination  of  age,  sex,  character  or  con- 
dition. Matt.  iii.  5 ;  Mark  i.  4,  5  ;  Luke  iii.  12,  14, 
21 ;  Matt.  xxi.  31,  32.  It  was  in  fact  preparatory  to 
the  personal  ministry  of  the  Lord  Jesus  among  that 
people,  (Acts  xix.  4,)  just  as  the  baptism  by  Moses 
was  preparatory  to  the  giving  of  the  law  by  which 
the  people  came  into  new  covenant  relations  with  Je- 
hovah. Exod.  xix.  5  ;  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2 ;  1  Pet.  iii.  20, 
21.  How  John  baptized  we  are  not  expressly  in- 
formed ;  but  we  have  no  more  reason  to  suppose  that 
he  dipped  those  who  came  to  him,  one  and  all,  small 
and  great,  beneath  the  waters  of  Jordan,  than  we 
have  to  believe  that  Moses  dipped  the  whole  congre- 
gation of  Israel  in  the  cloud,  or  in  the  sea.  The 
Syriac  translator  uses  the  word  amad  for  baptize, 
which  primarily  signifies  to  stand,  because,  says 
Schindler  (Lex.  Pent.)  "  those  who  were  baptized 
stood."    Siabant  enim  qui  haptizabaniur.    (See  Cas- 


94       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

water"  (singular  number),  but  ''many  wa- 
ters" (plural),  that  is,  many  streams,  or 
springs;  and  if  immense  multitudes  attended 
upon  his  preaching;  there  were  other  pur- 
poses for  which  many  streams,  or  (if  it  be 

telli  Lex.)  The  baptism  of  Moses  was  introductory 
to  the  Levitical  economy,  as  it  was  soon  to  be  estab- 
lished over  that  people.  The  baptism  of  John  came 
at  the  end  of  that  economy,  and  was  introductory  to 
the  ministry  of  Christ.  Hence  John  was  to  forerun 
the  Messiah,  not  to  labour  cotemporaneously  with 
him.  John  i.  27  ;  Matt.  iv.  12 ;  Acts  xiii.  25.  We 
do  not  read  that  John  baptized  after  Jesus  began  to 
preach,  nor  that  any  other  baptized  by  John's  autho- 
rity or  commission.  No  argument  therefore  can  be 
fairly  drawn  from  John's  baptism  which  cannot  be 
drawn  from  the  baptism  of  Moses.  But  if  it  be  in- 
sisted upon  still,  then  it  must  be  conceded  that  in- 
fants should  be  baptized  as  well  as  adults  ;  because 
John's  baptism  had  respect  to  the  whole  nation,  as 
well  as  Moses',  and  there  was  the  same  reason  for 
baptizing  all  classes  and  descriptions  of  persons  in 
the  one  case,  as  in  the  other.  Properly  speaking, 
however,  John's  baptism  was  a  legal  rite,  or  a  rite 
which  had  respect  to  a  people  living  under  an  econ- 
omy of  law,  and  was  soon  superseded  ;  whereas  the 
baptism  of  Christ  was  appointed  as  a  seal  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  to  continue  unto  the  end. 


VIEW    OF    BAPTISM.  95 

insisted  upon)  much  water,  would  be  vastly 
more  needed  than  for  the  mere  matter 
of  immersion.  Culinary  purposes  would 
require  much;  and  even  for  drmking,  much 
would  be  required  for  themselves  and  their 
cattle.  Besides,  they  were  in  the  habit  of 
performing  daily  ablutions,  or  purifications, 
and  their  "water-pots"  were,  probably,  not 
taken  along  with  them.  When  our  Metho- 
dist brethren  are  selecting  some  place  for  a 
great  camp-meeting,  many  streams  or  inuch 
water  would  be  a  strong  recommendation 
with  them,  although  it  is  well  known  that 
they  usually  baptize  by  sprinkling,  and  not 
immersion.  3Iuch  water!  John,  as  we 
have  said,  needed  much  water  for  the  accom- 
modation of  the  multitudes  that  waited  upon 
his  ministry,  but  he  did  not  need  "much 
water"  half  so  much  for  the  purpose  of 
immersing  his  disciples ;  for  one  fountain,  or 
pool,  would  have  answered  as  well  as  one 
thousand.  Besides,  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
John  seems  to  have  gone  from  Bethabara, 
the  main  ford  of  Jordan,  to  Enon ;  that  is, 
he   went  from   the  river  Jordan   to  Enon, 


96       A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

a  place  where  there  was  no  river.  If  much 
water  for  the  purpose  of  immersion  was  the 
thing  in  view,  why  did  John  leave  the  river 
Jordan?  Was  there  not  water  enough  in 
that  river?  Certainly  there  was  water 
enough  in  Jordan  for  immersion,  but  it 
may  not  have  been  so  well  adapted  to  the 
accommodation  of  his  hearers;  and  there- 
fore in  selecting  Enon,  because  there  was 
much  Avater  there,  immersion  could  have  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  matter  whatever. 
This  case,  then,  need  not,  must  not,  be  relied 
upon  to  prove  the  correctness  of  immersion, 
and  immersion  only,  for  it  has  no  strength, 
and  will  assuredly  prove  no  better  than  a 
broken  reed.     But, 

3.  There  is  the  example  of  Christ;  was  he 
not  immersed?  I  am  strongly  inclined  to 
think  that  he  was  not;  for,  as  we  have 
shown,  sprinkling  was  the  mode  prescribed 
for  purifying  under  the  Levitical  economy ; 
and  John  seems  to  have  followed  that  exam- 
ple.*    But  is  it  not  said,  ''When  Jesus  was 

■^  The  Syriac  version  (whicli  was  probably  the  first 
made)  may  suggest  to  the  learned  reader  an  argu- 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  97 

baptized,  he  went  up  straightway  out  of  the 
water?"  So  it  is  in  our  translation,  but 
what  is  the  Greek  word  here  translated  out 
of?     It  is  cirtOj  the  very  word  which  is  found 

ment  on  this  point.  If  he  will  turn  to  Matt.  iii.  13, 
14,  in  that  yersion,  he  "will  find  fov  /Sanncdrjvai  (to  be 
baptized)  in  vs.  13,  rendered  d'neamad,  and  the 
same  words  in  verse  14  rendered  ethamed.  Both 
are  from  the  root  (amad)  which  signifies,  both  in  He- 
brew and  Syriac,  Tie  stood  erect.  (Schind.  Lex.,  Cas- 
telli  Lex.,  Taylor's  Concord,  ad  vac.)  The  figura- 
tive sense  (baptize)  arises  from  the  fact  that  standing 
was  the  posture  assumed  for  receiving  the  rite.  Hence, 
in  Acts  xxii.  16,  Ananias  is  represented  as  saying 
to  Saul,  avaaras  (iairTiaai  (Syr.  kum  amad,)  arising, 
(standing,  having  arisen)  be  baptized,  i.  e.  put  your- 
self in  the  posture  for  receiving  baptism,  (for  the 
word  PaiTTiaai  is  in  the  middle  voice.)  The  same 
kind  of  phraseology  occurs  in  Acts  ix.  18.  (apaaras 
t^airncGt]),  This  explains  the  remark  of  Schindler 
before  cited,  Stabant  enim  qui  baptizabantur.  But  to 
return  to  Matt  iii.  13,  14:  Bearing  this  sense  in 
mind — neamad  is  in  the  Fut.  Peal  (3.  s.  m.)  which 
denotes  an  active  intransitive  signification  corres- 
ponding somewhat  to  the  middle  voice  in  Greek ; 
(comp.  Acts  xxii.  16.)  whereas  ethamed  (the  word 
in  vs.  14)  is  in  Ethpeel,  or  as  we  should  say,  in  the 
passive  voice.  Why  the  translator  should  have 
9 


98  A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

in  the  seventh  verse  of  this  chapter,  in  this 
sentence,  "  0  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath 
"warned  you  to  flee  {o.Tto'jfrom  the  wrath  to 
come  ?"    Is  not  the  meaning  here  very  plainly 

rendered  the  same  Greek  word  (/SaTTTiaOnvai)  in  these 
consecutive  verses  into  different  voices  in  Syriac — 
the  one  having  an  active  intransitive  signification, 
and  the  other  by  a  word  having  a  purely  passive  sig- 
nification, it  may  be  difficult  to  explain.  But  it  seems 
very  clear  that  he  did  not  understand  the  word 
pairriadrivai  to  signify  immcrse  in  verse  13,  for  whatever 
of  action  the  word  d'neamad  expresses  or  implies, 
it  ascribes  it  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  not  to  John. 

But  however  this  may  be,  neither  the  fact  nor  the 
form  of  our  Lord's  baptism  is  properly  applicable 
to  this  question,  owing  to  the  peculiar  relations  he 
sustained — for  observe:  although  he  was  baptized 
hy  John,  he  was  not  baptized  with  iJie  baptism  of 
John.  John's  was  the  baptism  of  repentance  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  (Luke  iii.  3 ;  Acts  xix.  4 ; 
Mark  i.  4,)  and  was  attended  with  the  confession  of 
sins.  Matt.  iii.  4  ;  Mark  i.  5.  But  Jesus  was  holy, 
harmless,  undefiled  and  separate  from  sinners.  Heb. 
vii.  26.  John  could  not  have  exhorted  him,  as 
he  did  the  people,  to  believe  on  him  who  should  come 
after  him,  (Acts  xix.  4,)  for  that  would  have  been 
an  exhortation  to  believe  in  himself.  John's  bap- 
tism did  not  have  the  effect  of  preparing  the  nation 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  99 

from^  and  not  out  of?  And  again,  in 
Matt,  xxvii.  40,  we  have  these  words,  "  If 
thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  come  down  (arto) 
from  the  cross."     It  is  the  very  same  word ; 

to  believe  in  Christ ;  it  was  not  an  opvs  operatum, 
for  the  nation  afterwards  with  great  unanimity  re- 
jected Christ ;  and  that  result  was,  perhaps,  the 
thing  chiefly  signified,  or  typically  foretold,  by  our 
Lord  submitting  himself  to  be  baptized  by  John. 
Our  Lord  afterwards  said,  (Luke  xii.  50,)  "  I  have  a 
baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  and  how  I  am  strait- 
ened until  it  be  accomplished ;"  alluding  no  doubt  to 
his  sufi'erings  on  the  cross.  See  also  Matt.  xx.  22, 
23  ;  Mark  x.  38,  39.  John's  baptism  of  the  people 
had  respect  to  their  existing  covenant  relations,  as 
still  the  subjects  of  law ;  whereas  the  baptism  of 
our  Lord  must  have  had  respect  to  foreseen  events, 
and  the  covenant  of  grace,  which  was  to  be  estab- 
lished by  or  through  his  sufferings  and  death.  There 
is  therefore  no  point  of  analogy  between  the  baptism 
of  the  people  by  John,  and  the  baptism  of  Christ  by 
John.  John  himself  plainly  saw  this  when  "  he  for- 
bade him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  thee, 
and  comest  thou  to  me?''  Matt.  iii.  14.  We  are 
therefore  to  consider  this  act  of  our  Lord  in  pre- 
senting his  body  to  John  for  baptism,  (like  his  act 
of  offering  up  the  same  body  on  the  cross,)  as  an  act 
hy  itself  proper  to  no  other  person,  and  without  a 


100    A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

a^d  now,  I  ask,  would  it  be  proper  to  render 
it,  come  down  out  of  the  cross  ?  There  are 
very  many  cases  of  a  similar  kind,  where  the 
word,  as  all  admit,  may  very  properly  be 
rendered  from,  and  why  then  not  in  the  . 
passage  before  us?  It  will  then  read, 
"When    Jesus    was    baptized    he    went    up 

precedent ;  and  were  it  even  proved  that  our  Lord 
was  baptized  by  way  of  immersion,  yet  it  would 
not  follow,  either  that  John  baptized  the  people  gen- 
erally in  that  way,  or  that  the  apostles  under  their 
second  commission  followed  that  example.  Indeed, 
it  does  not  appear  that  there  was  any  witness  of  this 
action  of  our  Lord,  excepting  only  John  (the  Baptist) 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Matt.  iii.  13—17 ;  Mark  i. 
9—12 ;  Luke  iii.  21 ;  John  i.  32,  33.  See  Scott's  re- 
marks on  Matt.  iii.  16,  17.  It  is  evident,  too,  that 
John  did  not  understand  his  commission,  (John  i. 
33,)  as  comprising  the  act  of  baptizing  the  Lord 
himself;  for  if  he  had,  why  should  he  have  refused, 
or  even  hesitated  to  perform  it?  But  this  dij0&culty 
was  instantly  removed  by  the  express  command  of 
his  Lord  ;  which  we  must  understand  as  a  new  and 
distinct  commission  given  for  this  single  act  and 
purpose,  or  we  must  believe  that  John  (though  filled 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  acting  continually  under 
his  inspirations,)  did  not  fulhj  comprehend  the  ex- 
tent of  his  commission. 


VIEW   OF  BAPTISM.  101 

straightway  from  the  water."  But,  sup- 
pose that  Christ,  to  "fulfill  all  righteous- 
ness," to  comply  with  all  the  requirements 
of  that  day,  was  immersed;  does  it  follow 
that  we  also  must  comply  with  the  same 
requirements  of  that  day,  and  be  immersed  ? 
Then,  on  the  same  principle,  circumcision  is 
still  binding,  for  Christ  was  circumcised ; 
and  we  must  keep  ihQ  passover,  for  Christ 
kept  it ;  and  we  must  observe  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  for  Christ  observed  that  also.  Be- 
sides, as  Christ  was  not  baptized  until  he 
was  thirty  years  of  age,  we  must  not  be  bap- 
tized until  we  have  reached  the  same  period. 
If  the  candidate  for  baptism  be  fifteen  years 
of  age,  he  is  much  too  young  to  be  baptized. 
If  he  be  twenty,  he  must  wait  ten  years 
longer ;  and  if  even  twenty-eight,  he  must 
be  patient,  and  wait  still  two  years  more. 
Moreover,  if  our  baptism  must  in  all  respects 
be  like  that  of  Christ,  we  must  have  no  sins,  for 
he  had  no  sin ;  and  we  must,  by  baptism,  be 
set  apart  to  the  priest's  office;  for  it  was  for 
this  purpose  he  was  baptized;  hence,  when 
he  was  asked,  on  a  certain  occasion,  by 
9* 


102  A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

what  authority  he  did  certain  things  in  the 
temple,  he  referred  to  John's  baptism.  How 
singular,  then,  it  is,  that  any  one  should  for 
a  moment  suppose  that  what  Christ  did,  in 
this  case,  was  ever  intended  as  an  example 
for  us!  He  ate  the  paschal  supper,  must 
we  eat  the  paschal  supper?  He  observed 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  must  we  observe  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  ?  He  was  transfigured,  must 
we  also  be  transfigured?  He  raised  the 
dead,  must  we  also  raise  the  dead?  He  was 
crucified,  must  we  also  be  crucified  ?  We 
must  follow  Christ  in  whatever  he  intends 
that  we  should  follow  him;  but  what  was 
peculiar  to  himself,  and  the  requirements  of 
the  Levitical  law  at  that  time,  was,  of  course, 
never  designed  for  our  imitation.  Judge  not 
according  to  appearance,  but  judge  righteous 
judgment.     But, 

4.  The  case  of  Philip  and  the  eunuch 
is  thought  strongly  to  favour  the  doctrine  of 
restricting  baptism  to  immersion.  /  think 
differently !  But  let  us  examine  the  case. 
The  passage  reads  thus:  "And  as  they 
went  on  their  way,  they  came  to  a  certain 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  103 

water.'"  How  vague  is  this  language!  It  is 
not  said,  a  river.  It  could  not  be,  for  there 
is  no  river  there  !  It  may  have  been  only  a 
streamlet,  or  shallow  pool,  such  as  is  common 
in  the  prairies  of  Texas.  But  to  proceed: 
And  the  eunuch  said,  *'  See  here  is  water, 
what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"  This 
is  just  precisely  what  a  traveller  in  similar 
circumstances  would  now  say,  if  on  his  way 
to  San  Antonio  he  should  come  to  the  Cibolo, 
and  see  by  the  road  side,  what  I  have  seen, 
a  place  scooped  out  by  the  hand  of  nature 
where  travellers  usually  water  their  horses. 
And  I  am  confirmed  in  the  correctness  of 
this  opinion,  by  the  fact,  that  the  region 
through  which  the  eunuch  was  passing  is  in 
ihQ  south  country;  is  called  "  c^eser^;"  and 
in  latitude,  in  soil,  in  climate,  and  face  of 
the  country,  is  very  much  the  same  as  the 
,  region  of  the  Cibolo,  some  sixteen  miles  east 
of  San  Antonio.  What  said  he  ?  "  See  here 
is  water,  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  bap- 
tized?" How  natural  this  language,  at  the 
sight  of  any  water,  much  or  little !  Observe ! 
he   had  just   been   reading   that   prediction 


104    A  PLAIN  AND   SCEIPTURAL 

concerning  the  Messiah — "  He  shall  sprinkle 
many  nations."  "  Of  whom,  says  the  eunuch, 
speaketh  the  prophet  this?  Of  himself,  or 
some  other  ?  And  Philip  began  at  the  same 
scripture,  and  preached  unto  him  Jesus." 
The  eunuch,  believing  Christ  to  be  the  very 
Messiah  predicted,  desired  as  an  evidence  of 
his  faith  to  be  sprinkled  in  his  name.  "  Not 
sprinkled,''  says  one;  "not  sprinkled!  but 
immersed!"  How  far  fetched  is  this;  and 
how  unnatural !  For  neither  in  this  pro- 
phecy, nor  any  other  touching  the  Messiah, 
is  it  predicted  that  he  should  immerse,  but 
that  he  should  sj^rinkle.  Of  course,  then, 
the  eunuch  expected  to  be  sprinkled,  and 
not  immersed;  hence  he  did  not  wait  until 
he  came  to  a  river,  but  as  soon  as  he  saw 
water,  an^  water,  he  immediately  proposed 
to  have  the  element  applied  to  him  in 
the  mode  and  form  predicted.  But,  says  the 
objector :  The  eunuch  must  have  been  im- 
mersed, for  it  is  said  by  the  historian  that  he 
commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still,  and 
"  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him." 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  105 

Both  were  in  the  chariot,  and  it  is  not  at 
all  surprising  that  both  should  have  got  out 
of  the  chariot,  and  have  gone  down  to  the 
margin  of  the  water.  This  would  have  been 
very  natural,  and  very  pleasant  to  any  jaded 
travellers  in  a  warm  climate.  But  is  it  not 
said.  They  went  down  ""into''  the  water? 
We  have  already  shown  that  the  preposition 
"s  (here  used)  is  frequently  employed  to 
denote  proximity^  and  in  perhaps  at  least 
one  hundred  cases,  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
is  translated  at^  to,  by,  on,  upon,  and  near 
to.  And  who  can  affirm  that  it  may  not  be 
rendered,  in  some  of  these  ways,  in  the  pas- 
sage before  us  ?  But  suppose  Philip  and  the 
eunuch  both  went  down  the  bank  literally 
into  the  water ;  this  is  no  proof  whatever 
that  the  eunuch  was  immersed,  for  as  the 
climate  was  warm,  and  the  legs  were  usually 
bare,  and  no  boots  or  shoes  but  only  sandals 
worn,  it  would  have  been  no  unpleasant  thing 
for  this  man  of  the  sunny  south,  literally,  to 
have  stepped  into  this  shallow  streamlet  or 
pool ;  and  it  would,  moreover,  have  been 
more   convenient  for  Philip,  in  this  way,  to 


106    A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

have  baptized  him  by  si^rinkling^  or  pouring 
on  him  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Messiah, 
in  whom  he  now  believed.  And  it  is  very  re- 
markable, that  a  goodly  number  of  very 
ancient  pictures  represent  the  baptism  of  the  ■ 
Ethiopian  as  having  been  administered  just 
exactly  in  this  way.  But  says  the  objector, 
Is  it  not  expressly  said,  "  When  they  came  up 
'ow^  o/' the  water  ?"  This  is  certainly  our 
translation  ;  but  let  us,  for  a  moment,  look 
at  the  original  Greek.  The  preposition  here 
used  for  "  out  q/"'  is  ^x^  and  this  is  the  very 
same  word  that  is  used  in  this  sentence :  "  0 
generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you 
to  flee,  ix^from  the  wrath  to  come?"  surely 
not  out  oi\  and  in  this  passage.  Matt.  xxi.  2. 
''  The  baptism  of  John,  whence  was  it  ?  from 
heaven  ov  from  men  ?"  Can  any  one  suppose 
it  should  be  rendered  out  of  heaven,  or  out 
of  men  ?  The  whole  passage  then  touching 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  may  be  rendered  thus : 
"And  they  went  down  both  to  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him, 
and  when  they  came  from  the  water" — I  be- 
lieve that  the  eunuch  was  not  immersed ;  but 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  107 

suppose  you  say,  "J  think  he  was  immersed." 
Be  it  so,  but  remember  you  must  not  only 
think  he  was,  you  must  be  sure  of  it,  or  you 
cannot  limit  baptism  to  immersion. 

5.  The  case  of  PauVs  baptism.  And  here 
I  would  remark  that  if  even  the  eunuch  was 
immersed,  it  is  pretty  clear  and  certain  that 
Paul  was  not.  Let  us  examine  the  matter. 
When,  on  his  way  to  Damascus,  breathing 
out  threatening  and  slaughter  against  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  the  Lord  Jesus  appeared  to 
him  in  dazzling  splendor.  Struck  down  to 
the  ground,  this  fierce  persecutor  heard  a 
voice  saying  unto  him,  "Saul!  Saul!  why 
persecutest  thou  me  ?  And  he  trembling  and 
astonished  asked,  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have 
me  to  do  ?"  He  was  told  he  must  go  to  Da- 
mascus, and  he  should  there  be  told  what  he 
must  do.  Being  led  by  the  hand,  he  was 
taken  to  a  certain  house  in  Damascus.  There 
he  remained  three  days,  and  neither  did  eat 
nor  drink.  In  these  circumstances  Ananias, 
divinely  directed,  comes  to  him  and  says, 
amongst  other  things,  "And,  now,  why  tar- 
riest  thou  ?     Arise   and  be  baptized ;''  and, 


108  A  PLAIN     AND    SCRIPTURAL 

forthwith,  he  arose  and  was  baptized.  Luke 
says,  avantas  £|3artrt50?j,  having  stood  up  he 
was  baptized.  "Was  he  baptized  by  immer- 
sion f  I  think  not ;  for,  in  that  case,  there 
certainly  would  have  been  some  such  record 
as  this:  "And  he  arose  and  ivent  out  and 
was  baptized  in  such  a  river,  or  stream." 
But  there  is  no  such  record.  It  is  simply 
this:  "  He  arose  and  was  baptized;"  and  it 
is  added,  "When  he  had  received  meat,  he 
was  strengthened."  Now,  as  Paul  must  have 
been  exceedingly  weak,  having  been  without 
meat  or  drink  for  three  days,  I  should  think 
that,  had  they  taken  him  out  to  be  immersed, 
common  feelings  of  humanity  would  have 
suggested  the  propriety  of  giving  him  some 
refreshment  first.  It  will  not  do  to  say,  that 
as  Paul  had  been  miraculously  converted,  he 
might  have  been  miraculously  sustained;  for 
we  are  expressly  told  that  he  was  strength- 
ened after  he  had  eaten  ;  and  that  was  after 
he  had  been  baptized.  It  is  evident,  then, 
that  Paul  was  baptized,  not  in  any  river  or 
pool,  but  in  his  own  room.  It  may  have  been 
by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  but  certainly  not 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  109 

by  immersion.  For  mj  part,  I  have  not  the 
faintest  idea  that  Paul  was  immersed ;  but  if 
we  restrict  baptism  to  immersion,  we  must 
not  only  think  that  he  was  immersed,  but  be 
positively  sure  of  it.  That  is,  we  must  be 
positively  sure  of  that  which  is  altogether 
improbable.     Again, 

6.  The  case  of  the  jailer  and  his  house- 
hold is  familiar  to  us  all.  Converted  in 
prison  at  a  midnight  hour  we  are  told,  "  He 
was  baptized,  he  and  all  his  straightway ^ 
Now  I  would  ask,  is  it  likely  that  Paul  and 
Silas,  bruised  and  beaten  as  they  were,  would 
have  gone  out  to  a  river  at  the  dead  hour  of 
the  night  ?  And  is  it  at  all  likely  that  wak- 
ing up  the  family  of  the  jailer,  they  would 
have  hurried  them,  dear  little  children  and 
all,  from  their  comfortable  beds  and  midnight 
slumbers  into  the  cold  waters  of  a  flowing 
stream  ?  Believe  this  who  can !  But  we 
must  not  only  believe  it,  we  must  hioiv  it,  or 
we  cannot  restrict  baptism  to  immersion. 
No  !  they  were  baptized,  as  we  have  full  rea- 
son to  believe,  in  prison ;  and  there  was  no 
river  there.  But  is  it  not  said,  "  He  brought 
10 


110     A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

them  out  ?"  Yes,  but  let  it  be  remembered 
that  they  had  been  thrust  into  the  inner 
prison.  Out  of  this  inner  prison,  unques- 
tionably, they  were  brought  into  the  court,  or 
more  spacious  apartment.  But,  says  the  ob- 
jector, is  it  not  also  said  that  after  the  jailer 
€ind  his  household  had  been  baptized,  ''  he 
brought  Paul  and  Silas  into  his  own  house?" 
This  is  not  denied,  but  who  does  not  know 
that  it  is  a  very  common  thing  for  prisons 
to  be  so  constructed,  that  there  is  a  commu- 
nication between  the  apartment  occupied  by 
the  keeper  of  the  prison,  and  the  courts,  and 
cells  of  the  prison  ?  And  that  this  must  have 
been  the  case  at  Philippi  is  evident  from 
what  follows  :  "  In  the  morning  the  magis- 
trates sent  the  Serjeants  saying,  Let  these 
men  go."  And  Paul  said,  "  They  have  beaten 
us  uncondemned  being  Romans,  and  have 
cast  us  into  prison,  and  now  do  they  thrust 
us  out  privily  ?  Nay,  verily,  but  let  them 
come  themselves,  and  fetch  us  out."  Now, 
if  Paul  and  Silas  had  themselves  that  very 
night  gone  out  privily^  would  this  language 
have  been  correct  ?     Nay  more,  would  it  not 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  Ill 

have  been  a  clear  breach  of  official  duty  in 
the  jailer  to  have  taken  them  out  of  the  in- 
closure?  I  believe  that  the  jailer  and  his 
household  were  baptized  in  prison.  Who  can 
say  that  they  were  not  ?  I  believe  that  they 
were  not  immersed.  Who  can  positively  say 
that  they  were?  But  this  must  be  affirmed, 
or  baptism  cannot  be  limited  to  immersion. 
But  again  there  is 

7.  The  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  house- 
hold. The  Bible  account  of  the  matter  is  this : 
"  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them  that  heard 
the  word,  and  they  of  the  circumcision,  which 
believed  were  astonished  as  many  as  came 
with  Peter,  because  on  the  gentiles  also  was 
poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
"  Then,"  said  Peter,  "  remembered  I  the  word 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.  John,  indeed,  baptized 
with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Observe  !  It  was  when 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  'poured  out  upon  Corne- 
lius and  his  household,  that  Peter  was  re- 
minded of  the  promised  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  was  received  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  theyi  it  was  he  said,  "  Who  can 


112     A   PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized 
who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as 
we?"  Having  had  the  Spirit  poured  out 
upon  them,  let  water  be  brought,  and  poured 
out  upon  them  as  an  emblem  of  this  spiritual 
baptism.  How  natural  is  this  interpretation  I 
Notice  the  language  of  Peter,  "Then  re- 
memhered  I."  Now,  how  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  administered  on  this  occasion 
by  pouring,  could  remind  the  apostle  of  wa- 
ter baptism  by  immersion,  cannot  very  well 
be  conceived,  for  the  memory  is  usually 
quickened  by  resemhlances,  not  by  differences 
or  dissimilarities.  And  here  I  will  make  two 
remarks.  First,  The  Scriptures  invariably 
represent  the  element  applied  to  the  subject, 
and  not  the  subject  to  the  element.  Cer- 
tainly this  is  true  at  any  rate,  with  regard  to 
the  main  baptism — the  baptism  of  the  Spirit; 
and  why  should  it  not  be  so  with  regard  to 
water  baptism,  which  is  but  its  emblem  ?  And 
that  water  baptism  is  an  emblem  of  spiritual 
baptism,  is  evident  from  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  spoken  of  as  connected  together, 
and  also  by  this  well  known  language  of  the 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  113 

apostle  :  "  We  are  all  baptized  by  one  Spirit 
into  one  body."  My  second  remark  is  this: 
Wherever  persons  were  converted  in  apos- 
tolic times,  there — in  the  same  place,  they 
were  baptized ;  whether  in  the  city  or  in  the 
wilderness ;  whether  in  the  private  chamber 
or  on  the  public  highway ;  whether  in  the 
prison,  or  by  the  river  side.  Yes,  there  is 
no  account  of  a  single  individual  after  con- 
version, having  been  taken  out  to  any  river, 
or  pool,  or  water  course  of  any  kind  to  be 
baptized  !  Wherever  they  were  converted,  in 
that  very  place,  on  that  very  spot  they  were 
baptized ;  and  it  would  seem  just  in  the  way 
which  was  most  convenient,  and  which  re- 
quired no  change  of  raiment.  And  here  I 
am  reminded  of  the  words  of  our  Saviour  to 
Peter,  who  was  willing  to  be  washed  all  over, 
in  token  of  his  thorough  and  devoted  attach- 
ment to  his  Master.  "  He  that  is  washed, 
needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean 
every  whit."  What  is  the  idea  here  pre- 
sented ?  Simply  this :  that  a  person  may  in 
the  judgment  of  heaven,  be  "  clean  every 
whit,"  without  the  washing  of  the  whole 
10* 


114     A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

body ;  a  part  (by  a  divine  synecbdocbe)  will 
do  for  the  whole.  As  Paul  speaks  of  divers 
baptisms,  we  would  not  contend  for  any 
^one  particular  mode.  If  only  the  heart  be 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  it  matters 
not  much  whether  the  body  be  washed  with, 
or  in  pure  water.  We  must  beware  how  we 
think  more  of  the  sign,  than  the  thing  signi- 
fied, lest  we  fall  into  the  error  of  those  who 
make  outtvard  ordinances  every  thing,  and 
who  would  substitute  baptism  for  regenera- 
tion. And  here  I  would  remark,  that  certain 
churches  in  Kentucky  and  elsewhere,  once 
flourishing,  now  nearly  broken  up,  may  serve 
as  a  beacon  to  warn  others  of  the  danger  of 
laying  undue  stress  upon  immersion,  and  of 
unchurching  those  Christian  brethren  who 
conscientiously  prefer  another  mode. 

8.  The  last  case  which  I  shall  mention  is 
that  of  the  three  thousand  that  ivere  converted 
and  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  These 
were  all  baptized  on  one  day,  but  were  they  im- 
mersed? I  think  not !  I  think  that  they  could 
not  have  been  ;  for  there  was  neither  time  nor 
place  for  immersing   so   great  a  multitude. 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  115 

There  was  not  time  !  Let  us  look  at  the  matter. 
The  hour  of  prayer  was  nine  o'clock.  How 
long  the  disciples  continued  in  prayer  before 
the  Spirit  descended  upon  them  in  cloven 
tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  we  know  not — say  one 
hour ;  if  so,  then  it  was  not  until  ten  o'clock, 
that  it  began  to  be  noised  abroad,  that  some- 
thing remarkable  had  happened.  How  long  it 
took  the  multitude  to  assemble,  and  how  long 
all  the  apostles  spoke  before  Peter  began  his 
sermon,  I  know  not,  and  how  long  was  the 
sermon  of  this  ardent  apostle,  I  cannot  tell ; 
but  one  thing  I  do  know,  that  after  recording 
a  pretty  long  address  of  Peter,  the  evangelist 
adds :  "  And  with  many  other  words  did  he 
testify  and  exhort."  We  have  reason  to  believe 
that,  considering  the  ardor  of  this  apostle,  and 
the  peculiarly  exciting  circumstances  of  the 
case,  his  sermon  must  have  been  very  long ! 
And  then  much  time  must  have  been  consumed 
in  discriminating  between  those  who  were  con- 
verted, and  those  who  "mocked" — and,  as 
those  who  were  baptized,  were  baptized  con- 
fessing their  sins.  I  think  this,  also,  must  have 
occupied  much  time ;  and  then,  if  immersed, 


116      A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

surely  it  would  require  some  considerable  time 
for  each  man  to  go  to  his  own  home,  to  procure 
the  requisite  change  of  raiment ;  for  we  cannot 
suppose  that  they  would  be  willing  to  go  drip- 
ping wet  through  the  streets  of  Jerusalem ; 
and  then  would  it  not  have  required  much  time 
to  find  out  and  secure  proper  places  to  be  im- 
mersed, if  there  were  such  places,  and  such 
places  could  be  obtained  ?  Now,  by  the  time 
that  all  these  things  could  have  been  done, 
surely  the  day  must  have  been  far  spent ; 
indeed,  too  far  spent,  I  think,  for  three  thou- 
sand persons  to  have  been  immersed  by 
the  twelve  apostles;  even  if  aided  by  the 
seventy  disciples,  concerning  the  presence  of 
whom,  however,  on  this  occasion,  no  mention 
whatever  is  here  made.  But  as  there  was  not 
time,  neither  was  there  any  place  for  immers- 
ing so  great  a  multitude.  Where^  I  ask,  could 
they  have  been  immersed?  Not  in  the  brook 
Cedron,  for  that  was  a  very  shallow  stream, 
and  oftentimes  entirely  dry.  Not  in  the 
Pool  of  Bethesda,  for  that  was  the  place 
where  the  sick  lay,  waiting  for  the  moving  of 
the  waters.    Not  in  the  u])per  pool  of  G-ihon, 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  117 

for  that  was  covered ;  nor  in  the  lower  pool 
of  Gihon,  nor  in  the  pool  of  Siloam,  nor  in 
the  pool  of  Jlezekiah,  for  over  these  the  ene- 
mies of  Christ  had  full  control.  As  for  Solo- 
mon s  pool,  from  that  they  were  some  seven 
or  eight  miles  distant.  Tell  me  not  that 
haths  were  common  in  Jerusalem.  These 
baths  were  in  the  houses  of  the  rich,  and  we 
know  full  well  that  very  few  of  them  were 
disposed  to  show  any  favour  to  the  disciples 
of  the  crucified  Nazarene.  The  fact  is,  that 
if  what  I  have  gathered  from  books,  and 
those  who  have  sojourned  in  Jerusalem,  be 
correct,  there  was  no  place  in  or  about  that 
city  where  the  pentecostal  converts  could 
have  been  immersed.  I  feel  confident,  there- 
fore, that  they  were  not  taken  out  to  any 
river,  or  pool,  or  bath  to  be  immersed,  but 
like  Paul  in  his  chamber,  and  Cornelius  in 
his  house,  and  the  jailer  in  his  prison,  and 
the  eunuch  on  the  highway,  and  Lydia 
at  the  sea-side,  and  John's  disciples  on 
the  banks  of  Jordan,  on  the  ver^  spot 
where  they  were  converted,  there  were 
they  baptized  by  sprinklingy  or  some  other 


118     A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

of  the  modes  of  purification  pointed  out  dis- 
tinctly in  the  book  of  Leviticus,  and  em- 
braced in  Paul's  "  divers  baptisms."  It  seems 
to  me  a  matter  reduced  almost  to  an  abso- 
lute certainty,  that  the  pentecostal  converts 
were  not  immersed,  and  could  not  have  been. 
Yet  if  we  limit  baptism  to  immersion,  we 
must  not  only  think  that  they  were  immersed, 
but  we  must  be  sure  of  it ;  that  is,  we  must 
be  sure  of  that  of  which  no  man  on  the  face 
of  the  earth,  as  it  seems  to  me,  can  be  sure. 
How  utterly  unreasonable,  then,  is  it  to  say 
that  baptism  is  immersion,  and  immersion 
only;  and  on  this  baseless  assumption  to 
unchurch  more  than  four-fifths  of  the  Chris- 
tian world !  This  is  a  serious  matter.  It 
shows  no  proper  respect  for  the  opinions  of 
others.  It  rends  the  seamless  robe  of  Christ. 
It  erects  barriers  where  none  should  exist, 
and  cuts  off  from  brotherly  fellowship  and 
Christian  communion  those  who  are  our 
brethren  in  the  Lord — those  who  are  bought 
with  the  same  precious  blood,  sanctified  by 
the  same  divine  Spirit,  members  of  the 
same  household  of  faith,  and  who,  with  the 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  119 

truly  pious  in  every  land,  are  all  passing 
through  one  beauteous  gate  to  one  eternal 
home.  "  Will  you  not  let  me  commune  with 
you  next  Sabbath  ?"  said  an  old  and  faithful 
servant  of  Christ,  of  another  persuasion,  to 
a  church,  many  of  whom  were  his  own  spirit- 
ual children — '^will  you  not  let  me  commune 
with  you  next  Sabbath?"  *'No,  we  cannot," 
was  the  reply,  "the  rules  of  our  church  forbid." 
"Then,"  said  he,  with  touching  simplicity,  "I 
will  go  and  tell  my  Heavenly  Father  that  you 
will  not  let  me  come  with  you  to  his  table." 
The  appeal  was  powerful ;  the  argument  was 
a  strong  one ;  it  flashed  conviction ;  it  set  all 
things  aright;  and,  as  the  story  goes,  the 
next  Sabbath  the  good  old  man  was  found 
seated  very  lovingly  with  his  spiritual  child- 
ren at  the  table  of  their  common  Lord.  But 
some  tell  us  that  close  communion  is  a  mat- 
ter of  consistency ;  that  immersion  is  the 
only  valid  baptism  ;  and  that  those  who  have 
not  been  immersed  have  not  been  baptized, 
and  therefore  must  not  be  admitted  to  the 
table  of  the  Lord.  This  puts  us  in  posses- 
sion of  a  new  and  powerful  argument,  which 


120     A  PLAIN   AND   SCRIPTURAL 

is  calculated  to  demolish  the  whole  system 
of  the  immersionist ;  for  the  point  to  which 
the  immersion  principle  leads  is  so  com- 
pletely at  war  with  the  very  spirit  of  our 
religion,  and  the  best  feelings  of  the  pious 
heart,  that  this  very  thing  proves  the  whole 
system  wrong.  At  any  rate,  the  conclusion 
to  which  the  immersion  principle  brings  us 
is  so  unchristian-like  and  incredible,  there 
must  be  an  error — I  repeat  it,  there  must  be 
an  error  somewhere  !* 

*  Baptism  is  emblematical  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work 
in  this  world  upon  the  believer,  and  there  is  no  war- 
rant in  scripture  for  confining  its  signification  to  any 
particular  part  of  his  work  exclusively  of  other  parts. 
This  work  begins  with  convincing  him  of  sin,  (John 
xvi.  8 ;  Eph  ii.  1 ;  Acts  xxvi.  18,)  and  ends  with  pre- 
senting him  in  his  redeemed  and  immortal  body 
(Rom.  viii.  11,)  before  the  presence  of  his  Lord's  glory 
with  exceeding  joy.  Jude  24.  As  a  rite  it  has,  in 
itself  and  independently  of  the  Spirit's  power,  no 
more  efficacy  than  the  clay  with  which  our  Lord 
anointed  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man.  John  ix.  6. 
Hence  it  is  always  spoken  of  in  connection  with  the 
operations  of  the  Spirit.  John  iii.  5 ;  Mark  xvi.  16  ; 
Comp.  with  Eph.  ii.  8 ;  Col.  ii.  12  ;  Titus  iii.  5.  Our 
Baptist  brethren  mil  concede  that  the  Holy  Spirit 


VIEW    OF    BAPTISM.  121 

We  have  shown,  as  we  think  conclusively, 
that  there  is  no  precept  nor  example  in  all 
the  Scriptures  which  limits  baptism  to  immer- 
sion.    But,  as  a  last  resort,  certain  allusions 

does  not  hegin  his  work  in  behalf  of  the  redeemed 
at  the  resurrection  of  their  bodies  from  the  grave. 
They  believe  as  well  as  we,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  con- 
vinces of  sin,  enlightens  and  renews  the  mind,  (Rom. 
xii.  2,)  engrafts  into  Christ,  imparts  true  faith,  sancti- 
fies the  soul,  converts  the  body  of  the  believer,  so 
to  speak  into  a  living  temple,  (1  Cor.  vi.  19,)  and  seals 
him  (body,  soul,  and  spirit)  unto  the  day  of  redemp- 
tion. Eph.  iv.  30.  In  many  cases  he  carries  on 
this  work  through  many  years,  giving  daily  guidance, 
strength,  and  every  needed  gvUcQ.  And  when  the 
body  of  the  believer  drops  into  the  ground,  he  still 
watches  over  even  the  sleeping  dust,  waiting  as  it 
were  to  gather  and  glorify  it,  at  the  revelation  of  the 
Lord  from  heaven.  But  for  all  this  previous  work 
(according  to  their  view,)  there  is  no  appointed  em- 
blem. And  why  not  ?  Is  it  not  all  one  work  ?  Does 
not  the  beginning  of  it  infallibly  ensure  the  comple- 
tion of  it  in  the  perfect  redemption  and  glorification 
of  its  subject  ?  Phil.  i.  6 ;  Rom.  viii.  29,  30.  Can  any- 
thing short  of  almighty  power  even  begin  it,  sustain 
it,  or  carry  it  on  during  the  life  of  the  believer  ?  Is 
it  not  as  easy  for  the  Holy  Spirit  to  gather  and  glo- 
rify the  scattered  dust  of  a  man  in  a  new  and  incor- 
11 


122      A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

in  the  New  Testament  are  relied  upon.  "We 
will  now  notice  some  of  the  most  prominent 
ones : 

1.  Romans  vi.  3.  **As  many  of  us  as  were 

ruptible  form  as  to  renew  his  soul  ?  A  priori,  then, 
may  we  not  say,  it  was  as  fitting  and  proper  to 
appoint  an  emblem  suitable  to  represent  the  begin- 
ning, as  the  ending  of  such  a  work  ?  Nay ;  as  our 
Lord  did  not  prescribe  any  particular  form,  is  it  un- 
reasonable to  suppose  he  designed  to  allow  his  apos- 
tles to  adapt  the  form  either  to  the  beginning  or  to 
the  end  of  the  Spirit's  redeeming  work,  or  to  both  ? 
Adopting  for  a  moment  this  supposition,  it  was  quite 
natural  for  the  apostles,  in  view  of  the  events  of  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  to%djiist  the  form  of  the  rite  to  the 
beginning  as  to  the  consummation  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
•work.  The  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  would 
suggest  the  outpouring  or  sprinkling  of  water.  Acts 
xi.  15,  16  ;  ii.  16,  17,  33  ;  Isaiah  xliv.  3.  This  form 
would  imply  all  that  immersion  may  be  supposed 
more  significantly  to  set  forth :  for  the  Holy  Spirit 
will  certainly  deliver  from  the  power  of  hell  and  the 
grave  the  bodies  of  all  those  whose  souls  he  hath 
renewed  in  this  life,  and  none  others.  Phil.  i.  6 ; 
Rom.  viii.  29,  30;  xi.  23. 

There  is  another  idea  of  great  importance  on 
this  question.  The  apostles  knew  that  believers 
shall  not  all  die  and  sleep  in  the  grave,  although 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  123 

baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into 
his  death."  Is  Christ's  death  intended  to  be 
here  represented  by  baptism  ?  I  should 
think  not,  for  Christ's  death  was  by  crucifix- 

all  believers  will  be  changed  in  their  bodies  as 
well  as  souls.  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52;  1  Thess.  iv. 
17  ;  Phil.  iii.  21.  Now  in  regard  to  such  as  shall 
not  die,  baptism  by  immersion  does  not  so  sig- 
nificantly set  forth  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
descending  upon  them  and  changing  their  bodies,  as 
the  outpouring  of  water.  Such  will  not  be  unclothed 
and  raised  from  the  grave,  but  clothed  upon ;  and 
consequently  the  greater  or  closer  analogy  to  the 
thing  signified,  which  is  supposed  to  be  furnished 
by  immersion,  fails  in  respect  to  these.  It  fails  also 
in  respect  to  all  those  believers  whose  bodies  shall  have 
been  burned  or  devoured  by  wild  beasts,  or  otherwise 
have  been  deprived  of  burial ;  and  who  can  say  how 
numerous  this  company  will  be  ?  Let  it  be  conceded, 
however,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  baptism  by 
immersion  does  more  significantly  represent  the  re- 
surrection of  the  believer's  body  at  the  last  day,  than 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  Its  greater  or  more  apt  sig- 
nificancy  is  certainly  confined  to  those  who  shall 
actually  die,  and  whose  bodies  shall  have  been  buried. 
On  the  other  hand,  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling 
more  aptly  and  significantly  sets  forth  the  beginning 
and  progress  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  upon  the  soul 
of  the  believer  in  this  life,  which  the  apostle  calls 


124    A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

ion,  and  what  resemblance  is  there  between 
crucifixion  and  immersion  ?  None  at  all. 
This  allusion,  then,  can  hardly  serve  to 
restrict  baptism  to  immersion. 

2.  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him,  by 
baptism,  into  death."     These  words  are  in 

his  first  fruits,  (Rom.  viii.  23) ;  the  enjoyment  of 
which  he  assures  us  justifies  the  confident  expecta- 
tion of  the  eternal  redemption  and  glorification  of 
the  body.  Rom.  viii.  29  ;  xxx.  23 ;  Phil.  i.  6  ;  John  i. 
12 ;  1  John  iii.  2.  And  besides  its  greater  or  more 
apt  significancy,  it  extends  to  those  classes  of  per- 
sons just  mentioned,  who  may  have  been  deprived 
of  burial,  or  who  may  be  actually  alive  at  the  Lord's 
coming  at  the  last  day. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  had  the  form  of 
the  rite  been  positively  prescribed,  it  would  have  been 
essential ;  whether  that  form  were  by  sprinkling,  by 
pouring,  or  by  immersion.  The  argument,  therefore, 
is  directed  simply  against  the  inferential  arguments 
or  conclusions  of  those  who  would  make  fi  particular 
form  essential,  where  none  was  prescribed,  and  that 
too  in  cases  where  other  forms  significantly  and 
strikingly  set  forth  essential  parts  of  the  same  one 
great  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Such  being  the  state 
of  the  question,  the  doctrine  of  immersionists  is  a 
new  precept,  and  a  requirement  to  which  neither  our 
Lord  nor  his  apostles  gave  their  sanction. 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  125 

immediate  connection  with  the  preceding, 
abeadj  quoted,  and  as  in  the  one  so  in  the 
other,  we  believe  that  there  is  no  reference 
to  the  7}%ode  of  baptism  whatever,  but  to 
something  vastly  more  important,  even  to 
the  spiritual  change  which  takes  place  in 
regeneration,  of  which  water  baptism  is  but 
the  visible  sign  or  emblem.  But,  if  it  be 
insisted  upon  that  the  mode  is  referred  to — 
be  it  so.  But  let  it  be  remembered  that  the 
apostle  in  the  very  same  connection,  speaks 
not  only  of  our  being  "  hurled,''  but  also 
''' crucified''  with  Christ.  Now  if  the  term 
buried  designates  immersion  as  one  mode  of 
baptism,  the  term  crucified  must  denote 
another  mode,  and  this  would  be  death  and 
the  grave  to  the  idea  that  baptism  can  be 
lawfully  administered  only  in  one  way.  I 
repeat  it,  in  all  these  figures  there  is  no 
reference  whatever  to  the  mode  of  water 
baptism,  but  to  the  effect  of  spiritual  baptism, 
causing  us  to  die  unto  sin,  and  to  live  unto 
righteousness.  But  if  it  be  still  insisted  upon, 
be  it  so.  It  only  serves  to  prove  our  point ; 
for  after  all,  how  is  a  dead  man  buried? 
11* 


126      A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

It  is  not  by  being  put  down  into  a  grave, 
but  by  having  earth  poured  in  upon  liim! 
This  passage,  then,  so  much  relied  upon, 
and  which  has  caused  our  brethren,  as  I  sus- 
pect, to  misapprehend  the  very  nature  and 
design  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism — this 
very  passage,  I  say,  if  it  has  any  bearing 
upon  the  mode  of  baptism  at  all,  proves  that 
pouring  is  the  true  mode  of  baptism,  and 
not  immersion.  Surely,  then,  it  will  never 
answer  to  adduce  this  passage  to  prove  that 
baptism  should  be  restricted  to  immersion.* 

■^  The  reader  observes,  the  argument  is  not  direc- 
ted against  the  validity  of  baptism  by  immersion, 
but  only  against  those  who  deny  that  any  other  form 
is  valid.  It  is  not  denied  that  baptism  in  ancient 
times  was  performed  by  immersion  of  the  body, 
wholly  or  in  part,  as  well  as  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 
Schindler  (Lex.  Pentag.  page  686,)  cites  the  Talmud 
to  the  effect,  that  whoever  was  received  into  the  con- 
gregation of  Israel,  was  circumcised,  baptized  and 
made  an  oblation.  The  baptism  (he  adds)  consisted 
in  the  proselyte's  sitting  in  water  up  to  the  neck 
long  enough  to  learn  some  of  the  precepts  of  the  law, 
difficult  or  easy.  But  even  this  baptism,  (although 
perhaps  one  of  those  things  grievous  to  be  borne,  to 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  12T 

3.  "  They  were  all  baptized  into  Moses, 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  What !  Im- 
mersed into  Moses  ?  This  would  be  strange 
language.  But  to  proceed — were  all  baptized 
in  the  cloud  and  the  sea ;  were  they  immersed 
in  the  cloud  f  This  could  not  have  been,  for 
the  cloud  passed  over  and  went  before  them, 
so  that  baptism  by  the  cloud  could  have  been 
only  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Were  they 
immersed  into  the  sea  9  No !  for  that  was 
made  to  retire  and  stand  as  a  wall  on  either 
side,  so  that  baptism  by  the  sea  could 
only  have  been  by  its  spray  sprinkled  upon 
them.  Now,  then,  whilst  by  the  sea  the 
children  of  Israel  may  have  been  baptized 
by  sprinkling,  and  by  the  cloud,  both  by 
pouring  and  sprinkling ;  hj  neither  could 
they  have  been  baptized  by  immersion. 
Pharaoh  and  his  host  were  immersed,  for  we 
are  told  that  thei/  sank  as  lead  in  the  deep 

which  our  Lord  refers  in  Matt,  xxiii.  4,)  did  not  con- 
sist in  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body.  If  this 
form  of  the  rite  was  in  vogue  in  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  it  is  certain  they  did  not  feel  bound  to 
adopt  it. 


128      A   PLAIN   AND    SCRIPTURAL 

waters ;  but  the  children  of  Israel  were  not 
immersed,  for  we  are  expressly  informed  that 
they  passed  through  on  dry  land  and  dry 
shod.  The  fact  is,  the  children  of  Israel 
were  the  only  ones  not  immersed.  They  who 
were  immersed  were  drowned.  In  the  Ixxvii. 
Psalm  light  is  thrown  upon  the  subject,  and 
referring  to  this  very  thing  the  Psalmist 
tells  us  precisely  how  the  children  of  Israel 
were  baptized  when  passing  through  the  Red 
Sea;  "  The  clouds  j!?oitrec?  out  water.''  They 
were  rained  upon.  So  it  appears  that  they 
were  baptized  not  by  immersion,  but  by  pour- 
ing. This  passage  then  is  rather  an  unfor- 
tunate one  to  prove  that  baptism  means  im- 
mersion, and  immersion  only. 

4.  "  07ie  baptism."  By  reference  to  the 
context,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  phrase,  "one 
baptism,"  has  no  reference  to  water  baptism 
at  all,  but  to  the  main  baptism — the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit.  The  influences  of  the  Spirit 
descending  and  resting  upon  the  heart,  we 
know,  are  frequently  called  baptism,  and 
spoken  of  as  the  main  baptism  ;  and  now  to 
say  that  this  phrase,  ''one  baptism,"  means 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  129 

immersion,  and  that  this  water  baptism  is 
the  one  main  and  only  baptism,  is  to  assume 
a  position  which  I  think  very  few  would  be 
willing  to  take.  One  baptism!  Unquestion- 
ably no  baptism  can  claim  such  pre-eminence 
but  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  this 
is  frequently  represented  as  administered  by 
pouring  and  sprinkling,  but  in  no  single 
case  by  immersion.  This  passage  then  can- 
not, I  think,  limit  baptism  to  immersion. 

Our  argument  is  now  closed.  I  object  to 
the  doctrine  which  limits  baptism  to  immer- 
sion, because  the  original  word  rendered 
baptism  has  different  significations,  and  there- 
fore cannot  be  made  to  have  only  one  mean- 
ing. I  object,  because  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  of  which  water  baptism  is  but  an  em- 
blem, is  represented  under  various  forms, 
almost  every  form  indeed  but  immersion.  I 
object,  because  whilst  no  precept,  or  example^ 
or  allusion  restricts  the  ordinance  to  any  one 
mode,  there  are  several  which  bespeak  any 
other  mode  sooner  than  that  of  immersion. 
I  object,  because  it  has  a  tendency  to  make 
us  attach  more  importance  to  outward  forms 


130    A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL 

and  ceremonies  than  to  things  more  spiritual 
and  divine.*     I  object,   because  it  presents 

*  There  can  be  but  little  doubt  that  the  heresy  of 
baptismal  regeneration  originated  in  the  form  of  bap- 
tism by  immersion.  These  words  at  first  (as  an  at- , 
tentive  reading  of  the  early  Christian  writers  will 
show,)  signified  nothing  more  than  baptismal  resur- 
rection, or  a  symbolical  setting  forth  of  the  resurrec- 
tion (redemption  Rom.  viii.  23,  or  regeneration)  of 
the  body;  represented  by  the  act  of  raising  the  body 
out  of  water  after  it  had  been  immersed.  So  long 
as  the  phrase  was  thus  understood,  it  appeared  to  be 
harmless ;  for  no  one  could  mistake  the  symbolical 
action  for  the  future  reality  which  it  set  forth.  Every 
body  could  see  that  it  was  uot  a  real  resurrection,  or 
a  real  regeneration  of  the  body,  because  it  was  obvi- 
ously the  same  mortal  body,  after  it  was  taken  out 
of  the  water,  that  it  was  before  it  was  immersed.  It 
was  understood  to  be  what  in  fact  it  was ;  and  (in 
itself  considered,)  afibrded  no  more  evidence  of  a 
renewing  or  change  of  the  mind,  (Rom.  xii.  2,  which 
was  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,)  than  it  did  of  a 
change  or  regeneration  of  the  body.  It  was  indeed 
emblematical  of  both ;  because  we  know,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  will  never  raise  from  the  grave  the  body 
of  any  one  to  happiness  and  glory,  without  first  re- 
generating his  soul  in  this  life.  Besides  the  baptism 
was  a  man^s  act,  although  appointed  to  set  forth  a 
work,  divine  in  all  its  parts,  whether  it  had  respect 


VIEW   OF   BAPTISM.  131 

at  least  a  seeming  conflict,  between  the  God 
of  grace  and  the  God  of  providence,  as  if 
they  were  distinct  beings,  and  one  required 
what  the  other  forbids.  I  ohject^  because 
immersion  is  so  peculiarly  liable  to  circum- 
stances calculated  to  destroy  all  solemnity, 

to  the  body  or  the  soul.  This  phraseology  thus  in- 
terpreted by  the  action  itself  and  hy  the  absence  of 
any  visible  effect,  was  ignorantly,  inadvertently,  or 
artfully  transferred  by  the  Roman  Church,  to  the 
form  of  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  which 
was  primarily  designed  to  represent  the  invisible 
operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (John  iii.  8,)  upon  the 
soul  of  man  in  this  life.  Thus  it  came  to  be  designated 
erroneously  a  real  work  [opus  operatum)  on  the  soul. 
It  was  impossible  to  confute  this  error  by  instant, 
ocular,  palpable  evidence — (as  when  it  was  applied 
to  the  whole  man,  body  and  soul)  and  in  that  way 
to  prove  that  no  real  change  was  wrought  by  the 
rite  on  the  soul ;  whereas  in  the  original  use  and 
sense  of  the  phraseology,  (as  applied  to  the  body) 
it  was  impossible  that  such  an  error  could  arise. 
While,  therefore,  our  Baptist  brethren  are  orthodox 
on  this  point,  they  erroneously  hold  exclusively  to 
that  form  of  the  rite,  which  gave  occasion  to  this 
heresy,  and  thereby  deprive  themselves  of  the  true, 
direct  and  surest  means  of  confuting  it :  viz.  by 
tracing  its  course  backward  to  its  source. 


132    A   PLAIN   AND   SCRIPTURAL 

and  disturb  that  calm  and  devotional  frame 
of  mind  so  desirable  in  administering  and 
receiving  so  holy  an  ordinance.  I  object, 
because  limiting  baptism  to  immersion  we  are 
likely  to  think  and  speak  lightly  of  the  term 
sprinkling,  a  term  made  sacred  by  the  pre- 
diction touching  the  Messiah,  that  "  He 
should  sprinkle  many  nations ;"  and  by  the 
promise  of  the  purifying  influences  of  the 
divine  Spirit  made  in  these  words,  "  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you  and  ye  shall 
be  clean,"  and  made  most  sacred  also,  by  the 
fact  that  the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  in 
which  the  robes  of  all  who  reach  heaven  are 
to  be  washed  and  made  white,  is  emphatically 
called  "  the  blood  of  sprinkling  !"  And  finally, 
I  object,  because  if  I  embrace  the  doctrine 
that  baptism  means  immersion,  and  immer- 
sion only,  I  must  pronounce  every  other 
mode  of  baptism  invalid.  I  must  unchurch 
more  than  four-fifths  of  the  Christian  world. 
I  must  say  that  the  great  mass  of  those  who 
have  gone  from  earth  to  heaven,  have  gone 
there  without  having  obeyed  one  of  the  last 
and   great   commands   of    our    blessed   Re- 


VIEW  OF  BAPTISM.  133 

deemer.  Moreover,  I  must  interpose  a  cruel 
barrier  between  myself  and  those  whom  in 
the  Lord  I  love.  If  my  dearest  friends  and 
nearest  relations,  if  even  my  own  parents, 
or  my  own  children,  or  the  wife  of  my  bosom, 
be  of  another  communion,  though  devout  as 
martyrs,  and  pure  as  the  angels  of  God,  I 
must  never  meet  them  at  the  table  of  the 
Lord.  I  must  be  separated  from  them.  I  must 
stand  aloof.  Although  I  may  have  full  evi- 
dence that  the  Master  accepts  them,  yet  !> 
must  not  accept  them  !  and  if  the  spirits  of 
just  men,  made  perfect  in  heaven,  are  willing 
to  commune  with  them  in  the  church  on 
high ;  I  must  not  commune  with  them  in  the 
church  below.  This,  in  my  judgment,  seals 
the  condemnation  of  the  doctrine  which 
limits  baptism  to  immersion.  It  raises,  as  it 
were  from  the  dead,  that  same  old  Diotre- 
phes,  concerning  whom  even  the  apostle 
John  had  occasion  to  say,  "  He  receiveth  us 
not,  neither  doth  he  receive  the  brethren, 
and  forbideth  them  that  would,  and  casteth 
them  out  of  the  church."  Alas  !  how  evident 
is  it  that  we  have  not  reached  heaven  yet ! 
12 


134  A  PLAIN  AND   SCRIPTURAL,   &C. 

0  happy  world !  where  Christians  of  every 
communion  shall  see  "  eye  to  eye,"  where 
they  shall  form  one  blessed  family  of  love ; 
and  where,  without  a  discordant  note,  they 
shall  unite  in  one  sweet  song  of  praise  ;  and 
with  thrilling  rapture  shout,  and  through 
everlasting  ages  shout,  "  Unto  him  that  hath 
loved  us  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his 
own  blood,  and  hath  made  us  kings  and 
priests  unto  God  and  his  father — unto  him 
be  glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever. 
Amen. 

Even  so,  come  Lord  Jesus,  come  quickly ! 


THE  END. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  LIbrai 


1012  01021   2316 


